EDLD+5370+Week+One+Assignments

Click on the above file link to view the original Word version of the Lamar EDLD 5370 Week 1 Assignment Document for Allen David Bordelon ET8012 Cohort 5 as submitted on October 10, 2010.

Week 1 Assignment 1.1 - Click here to view my blog posting on the Week 1 Videoconference.

Week 1 Assignment 1.2 - Click here to view my Comprehensive Exam Week 1 Assignment wiki page.

Click on the above file link to view my original Word version of the APA-formatted Assignment 1.3 and 1.4 document.


 * Reflections on EDLD 5306 Concepts of Educational Technology**

EDLD 5306 Concepts of Educational Technology was my first course in the Masters program at Lamar; it was also my first fully online learning experience, and I was not sure what to expect. As the course progressed, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the online model accommodated my busy schedule as Technology Director for La Vernia ISD, and despite the independent nature of the program, the use of the discussion boards, wikis and blogs really facilitated interaction and collaboration with my classmates and colleagues. I learned that I perform better as a learner when I can work independently of rigid schedules and long periods spent sitting in the classroom; the ready availability of assistance by the professor, coaches and classmates provided an excellent safety net that was there if and when I needed it.

There were several assignments throughout the course of the class, but the key assignments dealt with analyzing Campus STaR Chart data (in my case I chose to analyze La Vernia Elementary School) and the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology (LRPT), producing a faculty presentation relating our findings, posting this information and the presentation on a blog, and establishing a wiki reference and communication document. The analysis and presentation reinforced what I already knew, that we needed to do a better job of implementing technology in order to improve student performance and increase our Elementary Campus STaR Chart scores. Schacter and Fagnano (1999) state that “Applied effectively, technology implementation not only increases student learning, understanding, and achievement but also augments motivation to learn, encourages collaborative learning, and supports the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills” (p. 331). The EDLD 5306 course-embedded assignments provided proof that not just integration, but implementation of technology is required for our schools to achieve Target Tech on the STaR Chart.

My background as Technology Director meant that I was very familiar with the STaR Chart data, having used the data on both E-Rate and grant applications. I was already used to giving presentations based on data to my faculty and school board, so these tasks were straightforward and easy for me. I am also very familiar with the Texas LRPT as the District Long-Range Technology Plan must be correlated to the Texas LRPT to meet E-Rate requirements. The biggest change fostered in me by this assignment was that I began to look at the data more as an educator, trying to imagine what the results of the STaR Chart analysis would mean to me if I were a classroom teacher. I believe that I was successful in trying to present the data in an educator-friendly format, and this experience was pivotal in my positional change to viewing school improvement more as an educator and less as a “techie”, an approach I followed throughout the remainder of the program.

The new information I learned as a part of this assignment dealt with establishing a blog site and posting my presentation on the blog. While I was familiar with blogging and have several friends, including Miguel Guhlin, who are prolific bloggers, I had never blogged myself. Establishing the account and beginning my journal was very exciting, and as I love writing, I found the experience very enjoyable. To this day, I have maintained my class blog site, and have now started blogs for professional use in La Vernia ISD including my LVISD Technology Blog started this past summer. My biggest challenge was in uploading the PowerPoint presentation to the blog, and I had to make modifications to the presentation to accommodate idiosyncrasies of the online presentation widget. This exercise was a great learning opportunity, and gave me a better perspective on how to produce presentations for the online environment as opposed to a direct presentation environment.

My interaction with my classmates and colleagues through the discussion boards and the blog and wiki that was created later instilled confidence that I can think and communicate as an educator. One of my primary goals in obtaining a Masters of Education was to give me an educational background and an educator’s viewpoint with which to better serve the needs of my teachers. Communicating with so many fellow educators in a non-judgmental professional learning community through the discussion boards has been a highlight, and a great learning experience, in EDLD 5306 and all the classes that followed. My colleagues definitely helped improve my performance on my assignments as their dialog and viewpoint helped me better understand the needs and concerns of my fellow educators, and their critical but supportive analysis of completed assignments provided great feedback allowing me to hone my skills with each assignment. Hands-on experience with collaborative learning was also important to equip me to better support my teachers in the new way of learning; Solomon and Schrum (2007) explain that “The old way of doing things is presentation-driven; information is delivered and tested”, and emphasize that “…the new way is collaborative, with information shared, discussed, refined with others, and understood deeply” (p. 20).

Establishing the wiki that was used by my collaborative workgroup gave me firsthand experience in using Web 2.0 tools with asynchronous online collaboration and document creation. The hands-on experiences and readings about Web 2.0 tools including wikis and blogs also helped me to write a collaborative grant application based on Prensky’s (2005) digital native concepts that focused on using Web 2.0 tools to create a living, multimedia, online curriculum for middle-school mathematics. The digital native concepts helped me understand why we are having difficulty reaching our students; as Prensky (2005) points out, our modern students “…are so different from us that we can no longer use either our 20th century knowledge or our training as a guide to what is best for them educationally” (p. 8). While the grant was not awarded, my learning experiences in EDLD 5306 provided the foundational research for this grant, something I could never have accomplished without this class. My interactions with the grant-writing team using a wiki really cemented the benefits of online collaboration tools, and I seek to use these tools whenever possible in my professional undertakings.

As a lifelong learner, I continue to seek more knowledge on how to use Web 2.0 tools including wikis and blogs to enhance learning and to meet campus and district improvement goals. I have also become an advocate for Web 2.0 tools and digital native learning styles thanks to EDLD 5306; I am proud to say that I presented a Digital Native Learning Styles presentation at the ESC Region 20 Tech Fiesta during the spring of 2010, a feat I could never have accomplished without the knowledge gained through this degree program and especially through EDLD 5306 Concepts of Educational Technology.

Despite the fact that I was already a Technology Director with extensive experience in implementing instructional technology, I learned a lot during this class. The class awakened me to the unique needs and learning styles of our digital native students, and changed my way of thinking about instructional technology and its role in supporting improvement efforts. EDLD 5306 remains one of the top three most influential classes that I have taken throughout the degree program.


 * Reflections on EDLD 5333 Leadership for Accountability**

EDLD 5333 Leadership for Accountability was a course that I had highly anticipated, and I was not disappointed. Throughout the course, I analyzed campus performance data, examined the data from an educator’s and campus leader’s perspective, and then produced assignments including both a campus action plan and a professional development agenda designed to present strategies for improvement based upon the action plan and data. As Technology Director, I had been involved in data analysis efforts on each campus, but generally speaking I was involved more regarding the technology applications and methodologies used to analyze the data rather than analyzing the data directly, so I was anxious to experience firsthand what my teachers and principals were going through. I also wanted to determine my abilities to perform these tasks and draw conclusions so that I could more accurately direct technology applications in the areas needing most attention to support campus and district improvement efforts.

I learned that while tedious, I can take the paper AEIS reports and analyze them accurately. Analysis is essential; Hargreaves and Hopkins (1994) state that “One of the most commonly advocated means of achieving school improvement… has been through a continuous process of school self-evaluation” (p. 17). I more fully understand the rating system and its accountability rules and implications (I only had a peripheral understanding of the rating system before this class), and I can draw accurate conclusions useful for targeting the student groups most in need of attention. I performed all of these tasks while creating the campus action plan for the assignment, and after reviewing the plan I produced for La Vernia High School with the Campus Principal, she agreed that I was right on target and had reached the same conclusions as her workgroup. Therefore, I believe I performed well on the assigned task of creating a campus action plan using complete and accurate data, and letting the data speak for itself. Using all the data, and painting a complete picture based solely on the data, is essential; as Reeves (2000) reminds us, “The most consistent pitfall in accountability systems is the selective use of data” (p. 132).

As a course of this assignment, I learned that our high school needs to do a better job educating the disadvantaged students, particularly those in math and science. I also learned during this assignment that the disadvantaged students count twice in the accountability rating system, once as a disadvantaged student and again within their demographic group, so it is a double-whammy if they are under-performing, a lesson with significant implications for how and where I target innovative instructional technology initiatives in the future. This learning alone has improved my ability to provide leadership in support of improvement efforts. I also gained new respect for the role of the principal in accountability efforts; as Reeves (2000) observed, in schools demonstrating the highest gains on accountability indicators, “…the principal was personally involved in the evaluation of student work” (p. 202) and therefore acted as a true leader for accountability.

While I can always use technology tools to quickly and accurately analyze performance data, I deliberately did it the “old fashioned” way during these assignments to gain a better understanding of analyzing performance data. An added benefit to my approach during the assignments is that I can now more accurately evaluate the performance of accountability tools such as AEIS-IT and Aware, two great programs allowing teachers to easily analyze student performance and accountability data. I can now also speak authoritatively from an educator’s perspective regarding the methodologies and rubrics used in data analysis as I train and support teachers in the use of these products, helping me to become a better leader by modeling the appropriate use of these tools and techniques.

As Technology Director, I had already designed professional development sessions and developed agendas for professional development, so only the subject matter, school improvement, was new to me. I did discover some new “ice breaker” activities that I will use in future professional development sessions courtesy of both the assigned readings and my colleagues in the discussion board; these ideas are a great side benefit from this course.

During the analysis leading up to the development of the campus action plan, I learned that tedious, repetitive tasks such as the pencil-and-paper comparison of data drive me up the wall, as I have a natural tendency to want to use a technology tool to quickly and accurately perform the analysis. I now have more respect for principals who make teachers perform this tedious task; while it is frustrating and seemingly old-fashioned, I discovered firsthand that it really helps you to become intimately familiar with the student performance data, and the time and effort invested facilitate buy-in on the campus improvement planning activities that result from the analysis.

My interactions with my colleagues through the discussion board also enlightened me with an educator’s perspective regarding accountability systems, action plans and professional development agendas. I had always viewed these items from an administrator’s point of view, so it was very helpful to hear what teachers thought about these topics. This new information will help me to see accountability-related undertakings from their point of view, and will improve my ability to support their needs and address their unique concerns.

While this assignment in EDLD 5333 left with a deeper and more thorough understanding of campus action planning and data analysis, the question that continues to challenge me regards my concern that the data being assessed is based primarily on a one-time snapshot of student performance, and is just as likely to be measuring a student’s performance as a test-taker as much as it measures the actual knowledge and subject-area skills of the students. I would really like to see a revised accountability system that takes into account embedded, authentic, ongoing performance-based assessment as well as standardized testing, ultimately reflecting a more accurate picture of a student’s true ability and knowledge. In addition to all the new skills and perspectives I gained, these assignments left me with a better understanding of why teachers are so concerned regarding the current accountability system.


 * References:**

Schacter, J., & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 331.

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8.

Hargreaves, D. & Hopkins, D. (1994). Development Planning for School improvement. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK: Redwood Books.

Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Click on the above file link to view my original Word version of the APA-formatted Assignment 1.5 and 1.6 document.

As Williamson and Redish (2009) state, “Terms such as competency, proficiency, literacy and fluency are often used to describe what educators must know and be able to do to implement technology successfully” (p. 17). The questions we typically ask as technology leaders are “How do we measure technology competency?” and “What do we use to gauge technology literacy and fluency?” The answer is found in standards; just as our curriculum is based upon standards, giving us a mechanism to consistently instruct and measure competency, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) created standards for Technology Facilitation (TF) and Technology Leadership (TL). The standards are organized into eight Standard Categories, each of which contain both Performance Standards and Performance Indicators to facilitate both the design of professional development and the assessment of competency. While I was already familiar with these standards during my career as Technology Director, I came to know them more intimately through both my internship activities and particularly through the assigned readings in my EDLD 5370 Internship class.


 * Technology Facilitator Standard I**

When examining the Standards, the first TF standard encountered is Technology Facilitator Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts. Standard I includes the basics, the general foundation technology skills that all teachers must accomplish and all technology facilitators must know, truly the building blocks upon which all future technology skills are based. While I often assume that we have passed the need to train teachers in basic skills such as creating, opening and saving files and basic Internet and email usage, the text opened my eyes that many educators are still not as proficient as I believed. Particularly when it comes to Performance Standard TF-I.A, which requires educators to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding of concepts related to technology, I learned that a deficit in this basic area will inhibit development on other standards, and that I must redouble my efforts to insure all my teachers have a good grasp of these essential concepts. Williamson and Redish (2009) remind us that “The evolving nature of technology also requires ongoing monitoring and building of educator proficiency” (p. 21). I must therefore increase my efforts to monitor the proficiency of all my teachers regularly, analyzing their performance as critically as I do those teachers participating in grant-related activities.

While implementing my internship activities, I have focused particularly on Performance Indicator TF-I.A.2 which requires us as technology facilitators to provide assistance to our teachers in identifying technology systems, resources and services to meet the learning needs of specific students. This indicator was a major influence on my Action Research Internship Project which focuses on forming a Software Committee, made up of teachers and academic leaders, seeking new software which better meets the needs of our students, makes better use of our technology resources, and more closely aligns to District improvement goals. Before studying the TF standards, my primary concern was approving software that fulfilled teacher requests and was compatible with our systems, assuming teachers knew what was needed; this often led to software purchases that kept our teachers happy, but did not always closely align to state or local technology plans and sometimes required the purchase of specialized equipment.

My approach when implementing the Standards and Indicators during my field-based internship activities has been to refine tasks I was already performing so that the result was more closely aligned to the desired outcome for each Standard, following the Indicators when possible as models for activities. A good example of this relates to my implementation of Performance Standard TF-I.B, which requires us to continuously demonstrate growth in technology knowledge and our skills, and to keep abreast of both current and emerging technologies. Before entering this degree program, I generally communicated important information, technology tips and how-to’s through email; now, I communicate this information through blogs and shared documents, including my new LVISD Technology Blog started in August 2010.

Blogging and other Web 2.0 tools that I am using to communicate with staff and teachers have improved my level of implementation of Performance Standard TF-I.B and Performance Indicator TF-I.B.1 which requires us to model strategies that are appropriate and essential to the continued growth and understanding of technology operations and concepts; however, while I enjoy using these tools, I must admit I struggle to find the time to keep my blogs updated due to my hectic schedule, so this is still a work in progress. I must point out that the learning and interaction with my Lamar colleagues and classmates through the discussion boards and especially through blogs, wikis and Google Docs gave me the confidence to implement these resources and to confidently model and share these tools throughout my District during my internship, further increasing our aggregate compliance with Standard TF-I. Web 2.0 tools are hard to model if you are not a confident user yourself, and I doubt that I would have started a blog or created a wiki without the hands-on learning and experience garnered throughout my Masters program and my internship activities.

While working on internship activities related to ISTE Standard TF-I, I learned that the way I learn is different than the way most of my coworkers and my teaching staff learn. My natural tendency is to take a piece of new technology, or a new program, and “play” with it until I master it, reading the manual or seeking information online as needed to understand the uses and application of an object. Based on the assigned readings, and upon critical observation of my peers, I discovered that many of them need much more assistance and hand-holding to learn, and generally they learn much more through example and hands-on training than I do. This means that I cannot simply transfer my learning styles and methodologies to my colleagues, and had profound implications on my implementation of Performance Indicator TF-I.A.1 during my internship, with regards to assisting teachers in the ongoing development of their knowledge, skills and understanding of technology including resources and services. My past interactions with colleagues in which they failed to fully implement a technology concept may be due in part to my attempt to instruct them using my natural methods of learning, and I am now always cognizant of their learning styles and needs when planning professional development aimed at the foundation technology skills embodied in Standard TF-I.

As a lifelong learner, the biggest challenge I face regarding ISTE Standard TF-I is that I must learn to see the world through the eyes of my teachers, digital immigrants who are full of trepidation and fear both of the technology itself and of the possibility of making mistakes and embarrassing themselves. As Prensky (2005) reminds me, my digital immigrant teachers “…have adopted many aspects of the technology, but just like those who learn another language later in life [they] retain an ‘accent’ because [they] still have one foot in the past” (p. 8) Despite my age, my disposition and thought processes are much more attuned to those of the digital natives, so becoming a more effective technology facilitator will require me to step back and use action research to find the best methods to teach my digital immigrant staff members.


 * Technology Facilitator Standard II**

The second Technology Facilitator Standard is TF-II Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences. This Standard really aligns with my reasons for seeking a Masters of Education, to help me more effectively plan, design and model effective learning environments and an array of experiences supported by technology. While I already had extensive experience in using and implementing the technology components of learning environments, I was empowered as my degree progressed to design and model learning environments from the curriculum perspective, particularly those employing Web 2.0 tools and technologies such as podcasting, with more confidence and authority throughout my internship period.

During the reading, however, I was initially taken aback by the full breadth and depth of the Performance Standards and Performance Indicators, and realized that I have an expected responsibility as a facilitator to help teachers with areas I previously considered their domain. This is especially true regarding Performance Standard TF-II.D which calls for me to help teachers as they plan for the management of technology and technology resources within the context of their daily learning activities. Never having taught in a K-12 classroom myself, and not being a certified teacher, I was previously hesitant to delve too far into what I perceived as “their territory”. Now, however, I am capable of “speaking their language” and can use action research to demonstrate best practices for managing technology resources during their learning activities.

Throughout the implementation of my internship activities, I paid particular attention to Performance Standard TF-II.E regarding the need for me to assist my teachers in planning strategies to manage the learning of their students in a technology-enhanced environment. Again, I previously would have felt I was overstepping my bounds by delving this far into their classroom activities, but this has now become a focal point of my Internship Project in which La Vernia ISD is implementing blade servers, thin clients and virtual desktop into the Special Education classrooms. The ISTE Standards will provide guidance as I design training and support activities for teachers, and I will particularly follow Performance Indicator TF-II.E.1 as I attempt to equip teachers with a variety of strategies they can use to manage the learning of their students in the new technology-enhanced virtual desktop environment.

As a learner, I feel that the Performance Standards and Performance Indicators associated with Standard TF-II have particularly influenced my practice throughout my internship activities. It is a new game for me to delve so heavily into classroom learning and management, and the Performance Standards and Indicators under TF-II.A serve as my guide as I begin to work side-by-side with the Special Education teachers to design developmentally appropriate opportunities for learning that utilize technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support diverse learner needs. Performance Indicator TF-II.A.3 is of particular importance to this project as I will assist teachers as they use technology-based resources and strategies in support of the diverse needs of their learners, including both adaptive and assistive technologies.

Confidence is a critical component of learning, particularly when applying my learning and transferring my knowledge to other situations. My confidence as an instructional leader has improved as I progressed through the degree program, and particularly as I entered the latter portion of the program during the internship activity period. My interaction with professors and colleagues through the discussion boards and assignments built my confidence, and the assignments provided hands-on experience in applying what I was learning. This experience really helped me implement Performance Indicator TF-II.A.2 as I began to consult with teachers at the level of a peer, helping them design methods and strategies for teaching computer and technology concepts and related skills as a part of their classroom learning activities.

An important part of my lifelong learning journey is learning how to better assist teachers as they implement student-centered learning, and learning how to help teachers improve their skills. Williamson and Redish (2009) point out that “When implementing TF/TL Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences, technology facilitators and leaders help teachers understand and implement Student-Centered Learning, an important and essential condition for achieving ISTE’s NETS-S. In helping teachers shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning, technology facilitators and leaders assume the role of professional learning coaches…” (p. 45). Throughout my internship and after graduation, I will strive to remember that as Technology Director my job involves not only setting direction for teachers, but acting as their personal coach, helping my teachers to understand what to do and how to do it, supporting them all the while.

A major component of acting as a coach for my teachers involves listening to them and learning from them. Throughout my courses, I have learned so much from listening to my colleagues that I have learned a valuable life lesson; it is critical for me to truly listen to and understand what my teachers are telling me. Maxwell (2008) says it best that “When we hear without really listening, our leadership is bound to suffer – and so are our followers” (p. 50). This lesson proved essential as I have implemented Performance Indicator TF-II.F.1 during my internship, assisting teachers while they identify and apply the principles of instructional design that are associated with technological resource development; while my knowledge of educational best practices and methodologies has increased significantly, I must always listen to and learn from my teachers, otherwise we both fail. In the final analysis, I have learned that a large part of my performance as Director of Technology can be judged by the extent to which I assist teachers and administrators attain district improvement goals. The importance of the ISTE TF/TL Standards is that they provide a framework guiding technology leaders as we develop models of the preferred types and uses of technologies. Williamson and Redish (2009) note that these models “…encourage teachers to shift their practices when planning learning environments and experiences” (p. 46) thus helping us to attain improvement goals.


 * References:**

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). 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.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8.

Maxwell, J. (2008). Leadership Gold: Lessons I’ve Learned from a Lifetime of Leading. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.