Objective:
Introduction – Technology Goals, Needs, & Integration Analysis
Professional Development
Pre-meeting read – participants will read from a selection of technology and 21st century skills articles; selecting the one of most interest or relevancy to their needs or insterest; these will be posted on the campus internal website
Gallery Walk – each station will provide the following information:
- National Technology Plan
- State Technology Plan
- District Technology Plan
- Campus STaR Chart
- Campus Improvement Plan (area that focuses on technology)
- Computer Lab/Mobile Computer Lab Usage chart
- Technology tools available through district and campus
- Samples of technology integration on campus
Staff will discuss strengths and weaknesses using the Sticky Note Graphing activity.
Staff members will design action plans for integrating at least one new tool a semester for the upcoming school year. This action plan will be submitted with the district’s Individual Professional Development Plan during the summative conference.
Timeline
May, 2011
Evaluation
*Sticky Note Graph on Weaknesses & Strengths – initial assessment in May, 2011
*Face-to-face feedback during Summative Conferences in May, 2011; follow up during May, 2012 Summative Conferences
*Data collected during walk-throughs from campus leaders, instructional coaches, and technology facilitator – ongoing for formative assessment
*STaR Chart Summary Report for the 2011-2012 school year
*Category in the summative assessment with the stakeholder feedback survey in April, 2012

Objective
Learning Team Meetings with Technology Facilitator
Professional Development Plan
Technology facilitator will meet with the various learning teams every other week to facilitate new ideas with the technology integration
Timeline
2011-2012
Evaluation
* Department leaders and technology facilitator will provide formative feedback with campus administrator during monthly meetings during the 2011-2012 school year. This information will include ideas being implemented, progress and level of rigor, as well as what campus leaders should look for in walk-throughs. The campus leaders will document implementation during walk-throughs based on expectations provided by team leaders and the technology facilitator.
*STaR Chart Summary Report for the 2011-2012 school year
*Category in the summative assessment with the stakeholder feedback survey in April, 2012


Objective
Technology Integration to Facilitate Campus Meetings
Professional Development Plan
The technology facilitator will work with the campus administration to implement/integrate a technology tool with every school meeting (staff & stakeholder). This will model technology integration by campus leaders.

In May and June, 2011, the technology facilitator will review and demonstrate three to five technology tools for the campus leaders to explore and learn during the month of June to springboard ideas for cub camp, beginning teacher orientation, etc.
Timeline
2011- 2012
Evaluation
* A quick survey will be used for qualitative and quantitiave feedback after each meeting during the 2011-2012 school year.
*STaR Chart Summary Report for the 2011-2012 school year
*Category in the summative assessment with the stakeholder feedback survey in April, 2012

Objective
Stakeholder Focus Group to Provide Ideas and Guidelines for Technology Integration
Professional Development Plan
Recruit various stakeholders (staff, students, parents, and community members) to spearhead a focus group on opening up technology integration.
Read and discuss data, the various technology plans, and research on technology integration in schools.
Organize into smaller focus groups to develop –
- Update policy, guidelines, and consequences for student use
- Design an instructional component for teaching technology etiquette and safety
- Explore opportunities with available hardware and software
Timeline
July, 2011 – October, 2011
Evaluation
*Category in the summative assessment with the stakeholder feedback survey in April, 2012

Webinar Reflection

Webinar
I have experienced a variety of webinars through my graduate course, professional development and research for my department to use. They have run from the mundane and painful to the insightful, informative, and user-friendly. I have also been a facilitator of this format. I have found protocols, purpose/learning targets and facilitator skills to be imperative for the success of a webinar.
Protocols are imperative to ensure the webinar is informative and user-friendly. Protocols must be clarified for participants to understand how they are to interact with the presenter, facilitator, and/or other participants. Participants need to be informed of the format and pacing and how these protocols facilitate their experience. Participants also need to know their role in the webinar. Some webinars they are learning and asking clarifying questions. Some webinars participants must contribute to the information and learning in a more collaborative setting. Protocols also ensure that the learning targets are being met and the webinar does not get derailed.
Learning targets are also imperative. Participants need to be aware of what they are going to gain from the webinar. Facilitators need to stay true to what the learning targets are for the session. Webinars are meant to be effective and efficient for the learning and time the stakeholders. If the session becomes clogged with erroneous information or sidetracked from the objectives the effectiveness and efficiency of the session is lost.
Therefore it is imperative a facilitator cultivate the skills necessary to facilitate the webinar. This includes good communication skills, presentation skills, implementation of appropriate processes and protocols, and classroom management. If these are not considered and implemented, the experience is not only frustrating for the participants, but also the facilitator. Below are resources with information and examples to facilitating an online session.
In regards to webinar on Wednesday, March 2, it did provide answers to a few questions. Many of these questions were due to the Weekly Overview posting issues. It clarified the book assignment, where other information was located, how to complete the weekly assignments, etc. I have found the webinars to beneficial for this. However, it is more effective and efficient to read the transcript afterwards to find the specific answers I am looking for…due to my speeding reading/skimming skills… instead of sitting through the session. Plus with my work schedules, I am not available for the sessions scheduled this course.

Resources:
Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. A. . (2004). Engaging the online learner activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Pallof, R. M. , & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online learning together community. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Pallof, R. M. , & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the online learner. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

The National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) provides goals and recommendations to meet the expectations and demands of our global and technologically driven society. The plan focuses on the following key areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. Technology needs to be integrated in the area of learning to personalize and empowering our students to be successful. Technology, not only provides the tools for their learning, it will also provide experiences to be able to be productive in the workforce. Technology is imperative in assessment because it provides appropriate data for immediate feedback and intervention. Consequently, this will again improve student learning by continually making adjustments to personalize their learning. With regards to teaching, technology can provide tools to help facilitate teacher learning through data provided to online learning communities. The infrastructure is to provide the integral system of hardware, software, and services in a safe and productive format for all. Finally the plan notes the importance of ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of our educational productivity with utilizing technology. The federal governments’ role is to promote the collaboration between the private and public sectors, the state, the federal, and any other entities that can impact the success of our students learning.
The NETP provided recommendations for their goals. In regards to learning, they encourage states to design technology standards, develop resources, and broaden opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In regards to teaching, NETP encourages more opportunities for teachers to experience learning through online professional development, social network platforms, and other job-embedded opportunities when and where they need them.
Again, the federal government has provided goals and expectations .but how will this trickle down to the states? How much support will the government provide? How much guidance? Will this be another grandiose plan that states will struggle with funding, providing, implementing, etc? Will this be another plan intended for the good of our children yet gets off-track with bureaucracy and misinterpretation? It looks good on paper, feels right, but will it facilitate expectations successfully?
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming american education learning powered by technology national education technology plan 2010 executive summary Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf

Educator Preparation and Development is one of the four key areas to the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2010. This key component highlights the importance of the teacher in the success of our students in the 21st century. With this fast-paced, ever-changing field, it is imperative for teachers to facilitate student learning comfortably and successfully. Therefore, educator preparation programs must prepare future teachers on how to understand how to integrate and facilitate technology effectively with curriculum and instruction. Continuing professional development for veteran teachers must also provide opportunities for teachers to explore and hone their skills with developing technology integrated learning. Consequently, the state tracks State Board for Educator Certification Technology Application Proficiencies to ensure the continuous progress in technology integration with all teachers.
At this time, feedback indicated teachers are progressing. Most teachers rate within the mid-categories of Developing and Advanced with the STaR Chart assessment. Teachers have participated in a variety of state provided professional development and grants to improve their technology skills. However, even with this progress, teachers still have areas of improvement. Both the federal plan and state plan encourage more professional development, especially in the area of online opportunities. Professional development needs to be more consistent and sustainable with increasing demand, yet the decreasing funds.
I would recommend a few ideas to improve educator preparation and development. First, a culture and forum of using technology freely needs to be cultivated. This would mean setting up reasonable protocols, precedents, and forums for technology to be used. Stakeholder expectations on providing a safe technology environment for their children without the responsibility being on the child have made educators wary of exploring and letting their students explore. Consequently, if expectations were enforced and transgressions were not crucified, teachers would be more at ease at exploring and letting their students explore. Which means the tight control over student use of technology, such as their own personal hand-helds, and the internet access with the tightly restricted use parameters needs to be loosened. Teachers also need their professional development to be job embedded. A three or six hour session in the summer is not going to transfer over successfully to being used throughout the year. Therefore, learning teams or professional learning communities should integrate technology. Finally, I wonder if teachers rate themselves in the mid-categories because technology is always changing and updating that being self-critical will teachers ever feel on target.
Texas Education Agency, (2010). 2010 progress report on the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2010 Austin, TX: Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2006). National education technology plan Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/edlite-default.html

2010 Progress Report on the Longe-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2010 Summary

In the latest Progress Report, Texas addresses the four areas of their plan – Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support and Infrastructure for Technology.
In regards to teaching and learning, there are a multitude of action plans in place or that have been completed to meet the students’ needs. There is progress being made just not as significantly as expected. Technology knowledge and skills requirements have been updated for flexibility. The Technology Application TEKS are under revision to adjust to the changing environment. Numerous initiatives, such as The Technology Immersion Pilots or Vision 2020, have helped established and cultivated improved technology applications. Unfortunately, Texas students are still behind. This seems to be attributed to the sub-populations. Also many districts are facing the roadblock of sustaining these technology advancements with the end of these grants and facing continued budget cuts.
In regards to teachers, most of them are rated in the mid-categories of Developing or Advanced. Region centers have a provided a variety of opportunities for professional development. They have facilitated Project Share for teachers to participate in learning communities across the state. iTunes U have been established to increase resource availability. The state believes the necessary resources are being provided.
In regards to the Leadership and Support, the state has made strives to keep this area innovative. With the STaR chart, the majority falls in the mid-categories of Developing and Advanced. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee continues to redesign the plan and initiatives to meet the changing demands and future needs. Through the E-Rate plan, districts have saved considerable amounts of funding on technology services. Based on Average Daily Attendance, technology allotments have averaged at $30 per student. These resources have provided the structure and leadership to facilitate the advancement over the years.
In regards to Infrastructure, the state is working to increase the broadband capabilities across the state. The Connected Texas initiative will increase service capabilities across Texas to ensure the opportunities for all Texans. Internet safety has become an integral part of the guidelines and implementation. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, through their computer recovery centers has provided over six thousand computers. The state has made significant effort to provide the infrastructure for its citizens.
Texas Education Agency, (2010). 2010 progress report on the long-range plan for technology,
2006-2010 Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx? id=5096&menu_id=2147483665