Standard VI: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues guides technology leaders and facilitators through oftentimes chartered territory. Keeping abreast with the legalities of copyright and privacy laws can be a time-consuming task. Keeping decisions made in the realm of social and human issues such as digital equity, cyberbullying, and privacy considerations can be challenging as clear-cut guidelines are often nonexistent. Williamson and Redish (2009) highlight four specific issues that technology leaders and facilitators must be prepared to tackle: digital equity, student privacy, student online safety, and copyright laws.
Technology leaders and facilitators should make decisions through the filter of digital equity, considering such factors as computers and other digital tools per classroom, assistive technology to meet students' needs, professional development needs for teachers to ensure access, and access to technology for students and teachers that extend beyond the school day.
Technology leaders and facilitators are responsible at varying degrees of modeling safe computing standards such as keeping passwords protected, logon procedures secured, and securing student data as directed by FERPA.
Online student safety is required by CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) and requires that schools and districts comply to laws designed to protect students' privacy and safety in online environments. Ensuring proper filtering software to educating students about the hazards of online environments and ethical behavior in online environments are the responsibilities that align with the job of technology facilitator.
Districts have specific guidelines and documents to help guide users, teachers and students, in their use of online learning environments. Internet Safety Policies (ISPs) spell out what measures the district takes to keep students safe. Acceptable Use Policies spell out the responsibilities of the users (the students and teachers). Technology leaders and facilitators are responsible for keeping the ISPs and AUPs current in light of the vastly changing online environment.
Two performance tasks specifically stated in Standard VI are adherence to copyright laws and the use of assistive technology. The other performance standards are more general . The technology leader assumes the role of researcher and shares results of research. The technology facilitator helps implement the research-based practices at the building level-informing teachers and students of current trends and responsibilities.
Standard VI address every essential condition set forth by ISTE, specifically focused on those conditions of shared vision, implementation planning, and engaged communities.
As a technology facilitator and/or leader in my district, more attention is needed in establishing an Acceptable Use Policy that is current and up-to-date and understandable by the student. We currently have students of all ages and grades sign the Acceptable Use Policy as well as their parents. Given the level of legal language in the document, very few users actually understand what their responsibilities as users of technology entail. Priority would be to word the documents so that they are comprehensible by the users and provide instruction as to how to ensure that users stay in compliance.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Standard V: Productivity and Professional Practice
Standard V: Productivity and Professional Practice addresses meeting the learning needs of students via the educators' use of technology to enhance productivity and professional learning opportunities. This standard also relates directly to ISTE's essential conditions of skilled personnel and ongoing professional development.
Technology facilitators are expected to be knowledgeable on a myriad of productivity products such as word processors, presentation platforms, communication software, spreadsheets, etc. By contextualizing these skills, providing these platforms in a format that meet teacher's needs for integration into their skill set or curriculum, technology facilitators can shorten the learning curve of these products and help bolster productivity more quickly.
Technology facilitators and leaders assume the role of developing and hosting professional learning opportunities for teachers. Leaders assume more of the needs evaluation and program development where facilitators assist teachers with implementation of program components into the classroom. Facilitators are also instrumental in helping teachers form professional learning communities through modeling and ongoing support, as well as disseminating information from research done as part of ongoing learning and research. One point of caution is for the technology facilitator not to become an enabler, whereas facilitators actually do the legwork and teachers don't have the opportunity to internalize the new learning.
Facilitators and leaders of technology stretch across boundaries of helping teachers with productivity, helping teachers and parents via improved communication methods, and helping forge community bonds via information available to the public. Technology leaders are instrumental in developing policy, whereas facilitators disseminate information at the building level.
Using distance education programs has been easy thus far in my journey to becoming a qualified technology facilitator since I'm pursuing my degree program online. Standard V stresses the importance of continually growing a researched-based body of knowledge by staying abreast of research and trends and staying current on integration of new productivity tools into curriculum. Understanding adult learning preferences and providing opportunities for authentic collaboration that is timely and convenient to the end user, the teachers, is critical in creating a wave of change in a school setting. Being readily available for ideas, modeling, and coteaching can encourage staff to come to the facilitator, ready to implement new technologies into their teaching and learning.
Technology facilitators are expected to be knowledgeable on a myriad of productivity products such as word processors, presentation platforms, communication software, spreadsheets, etc. By contextualizing these skills, providing these platforms in a format that meet teacher's needs for integration into their skill set or curriculum, technology facilitators can shorten the learning curve of these products and help bolster productivity more quickly.
Technology facilitators and leaders assume the role of developing and hosting professional learning opportunities for teachers. Leaders assume more of the needs evaluation and program development where facilitators assist teachers with implementation of program components into the classroom. Facilitators are also instrumental in helping teachers form professional learning communities through modeling and ongoing support, as well as disseminating information from research done as part of ongoing learning and research. One point of caution is for the technology facilitator not to become an enabler, whereas facilitators actually do the legwork and teachers don't have the opportunity to internalize the new learning.
Facilitators and leaders of technology stretch across boundaries of helping teachers with productivity, helping teachers and parents via improved communication methods, and helping forge community bonds via information available to the public. Technology leaders are instrumental in developing policy, whereas facilitators disseminate information at the building level.
Using distance education programs has been easy thus far in my journey to becoming a qualified technology facilitator since I'm pursuing my degree program online. Standard V stresses the importance of continually growing a researched-based body of knowledge by staying abreast of research and trends and staying current on integration of new productivity tools into curriculum. Understanding adult learning preferences and providing opportunities for authentic collaboration that is timely and convenient to the end user, the teachers, is critical in creating a wave of change in a school setting. Being readily available for ideas, modeling, and coteaching can encourage staff to come to the facilitator, ready to implement new technologies into their teaching and learning.
Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation
Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation holds a two-fold focus: assessing curricular standards via computer-based testing (CBT) and assessing students' knowledge of technology. Each area poses a unique set of challenges and each offers benefits using technology based assessment and evaluation.
Using computer-based testing for adaptive purposes, more testing and assessment opportunity, more timely feedback, and authentic assessment options are all benefits to using technology in assessment and evaluation. The data collection rendered from this assessment avenue can be disaggregated, reformulated, merged with other data collection repositories to create a history of achievement school-wide, across sub populations of student groups, or longitudinal data streams of individual students. The challenges for computer-based testing include hardware inventory, assessors knowledge of computer-based assessment systems, design and availability of assessments that tap into higher-order knowledge bases such as synthesis and questioning. Additional challenges such as addressing learning styles and developmental readiness also are present with CBT.
Assessing students' technology knowledge poses a challenge in that very few instruments are appropriate for assessing a loosely defined set of expectations. Because the expectations are not firmly rooted in curriculum across schools, districts, or at the state level, it's impossible to compare data across entities. Very few formal assessments have been developed to measure technology knowledge among students, although NCLB requirements state that students are to be "technologically proficient" by the end of 8th grade. As Williamson and Redish reiterate, "technology facilitators and leaders understand that no single data source or method of assessment provides a complete picture of student learning (2009, pg. 89).
Technology facilitators and leaders are responsible for evaluating how technology enhances student learning. Constant vigilance on the effectiveness of software, testing, professional development, and professional learning communities is the responsibility of both technology facilitators and leaders.
The performance indicators and standards hinge on modeling technologies for teachers and creating clear understandings how technology can enhance student performance directly or indirectly such as through increased performance of tasks for teachers. A one-time testing approach is no longer taken. Assessment is formative, on-going, specific, and constantly changing to meet student needs and learning styles.
Currently in our school and district, 5th grade students are given a computer-based assessment on technology skills. While the assessment is administered via the computer, it basically is comprised on multiple choice questions that could easily be administered as a paper-pencil type assessment. Little more than reporting of the scores is done to follow up the results. At the junior high level, all students are required to enroll in a semester computer course, designed to teach basic word processing skills, presentation skills, and some multimedia approaches. At the end of 8th grade, students are given a computer-based checklist that is a self-assessment of skills learned. At the high school level, advance technology courses such as multimedia, movie making, graphic design, etc. are offered as electives.
Using computer-based testing for adaptive purposes, more testing and assessment opportunity, more timely feedback, and authentic assessment options are all benefits to using technology in assessment and evaluation. The data collection rendered from this assessment avenue can be disaggregated, reformulated, merged with other data collection repositories to create a history of achievement school-wide, across sub populations of student groups, or longitudinal data streams of individual students. The challenges for computer-based testing include hardware inventory, assessors knowledge of computer-based assessment systems, design and availability of assessments that tap into higher-order knowledge bases such as synthesis and questioning. Additional challenges such as addressing learning styles and developmental readiness also are present with CBT.
Assessing students' technology knowledge poses a challenge in that very few instruments are appropriate for assessing a loosely defined set of expectations. Because the expectations are not firmly rooted in curriculum across schools, districts, or at the state level, it's impossible to compare data across entities. Very few formal assessments have been developed to measure technology knowledge among students, although NCLB requirements state that students are to be "technologically proficient" by the end of 8th grade. As Williamson and Redish reiterate, "technology facilitators and leaders understand that no single data source or method of assessment provides a complete picture of student learning (2009, pg. 89).
Technology facilitators and leaders are responsible for evaluating how technology enhances student learning. Constant vigilance on the effectiveness of software, testing, professional development, and professional learning communities is the responsibility of both technology facilitators and leaders.
The performance indicators and standards hinge on modeling technologies for teachers and creating clear understandings how technology can enhance student performance directly or indirectly such as through increased performance of tasks for teachers. A one-time testing approach is no longer taken. Assessment is formative, on-going, specific, and constantly changing to meet student needs and learning styles.
Currently in our school and district, 5th grade students are given a computer-based assessment on technology skills. While the assessment is administered via the computer, it basically is comprised on multiple choice questions that could easily be administered as a paper-pencil type assessment. Little more than reporting of the scores is done to follow up the results. At the junior high level, all students are required to enroll in a semester computer course, designed to teach basic word processing skills, presentation skills, and some multimedia approaches. At the end of 8th grade, students are given a computer-based checklist that is a self-assessment of skills learned. At the high school level, advance technology courses such as multimedia, movie making, graphic design, etc. are offered as electives.
Standard III: Teaching Learning and the Curriculum
Standard III strives to integrate technology standards into existing State and local curricula and create a bridge between students' social proficiency with technology and proficiency using technology to enhance learning and deepen understanding of curricular areas. This approach is an extension of Standard II, which strives to assist educators in the planning stages of learning, to the execution of those plans designed with technology in mind.
Technology literacy is identified as the gap that students experience when they enter the workforce unprepared for the challenges presented. Reiterated is the fact that students are well-versed in using technology in the social realm, but fall short in preparedness for using technology to learn or work productively.
The emphasis shifts focus from teaching technology as a specific set of skills to a more constructivist approach, integrating technology into the existing curriculum and using technology as an means to the end goal-learning. Technology standards for students were developed, as well as for teachers, to achieve this goal. However, the challenge lies in the fact little development of these standards continues as compared to developments in local and state curriculum.
Performance indicators and tasks for the technology facilitator take on a more active role in Standard III than in Standard II. Standard II relied mostly on teachers' planning technology into the curriculum with the support of the technology facilitator whereas Standard III requires that the technology facilitator model how to implement and manage technology into the classroom so that the diverse needs of learners are met and learning styles are accommodated. Using assistive technology to meet diverse learners' needs and modeling appropriate levels of challenge to promote problem solving skills and higher order thinking skills is the charge given to technology facilitators. In-depth knowledge of the curriculum is paramount in achieving these goals.
Having experience in the roles of classroom teacher, Title I teacher, and Reading Specialist offer the necessary understanding of various learners' needs and approaches. Combining this experience with an in-depth understanding of the technology standards will equip me for the role of technology facilitator. Often times in our district, our technology facilitator is skilled in the area of hardware, software, and networks, but lacks the understanding of implementing technology into the curriculum at various grade levels. I teach first grade, which presents its own set of challenges, even for the elementary facilitator. Students are still learning to identify letters, much less keyboard. Students are just beginning to learn the concept of saving their work to their space on the server, format basic documents, safely surf the internet, etc. The challenge here is to meet a wide range of technology proficiencies, even in first grade, to promote the use of technology to enhance learning.
Technology literacy is identified as the gap that students experience when they enter the workforce unprepared for the challenges presented. Reiterated is the fact that students are well-versed in using technology in the social realm, but fall short in preparedness for using technology to learn or work productively.
The emphasis shifts focus from teaching technology as a specific set of skills to a more constructivist approach, integrating technology into the existing curriculum and using technology as an means to the end goal-learning. Technology standards for students were developed, as well as for teachers, to achieve this goal. However, the challenge lies in the fact little development of these standards continues as compared to developments in local and state curriculum.
Performance indicators and tasks for the technology facilitator take on a more active role in Standard III than in Standard II. Standard II relied mostly on teachers' planning technology into the curriculum with the support of the technology facilitator whereas Standard III requires that the technology facilitator model how to implement and manage technology into the classroom so that the diverse needs of learners are met and learning styles are accommodated. Using assistive technology to meet diverse learners' needs and modeling appropriate levels of challenge to promote problem solving skills and higher order thinking skills is the charge given to technology facilitators. In-depth knowledge of the curriculum is paramount in achieving these goals.
Having experience in the roles of classroom teacher, Title I teacher, and Reading Specialist offer the necessary understanding of various learners' needs and approaches. Combining this experience with an in-depth understanding of the technology standards will equip me for the role of technology facilitator. Often times in our district, our technology facilitator is skilled in the area of hardware, software, and networks, but lacks the understanding of implementing technology into the curriculum at various grade levels. I teach first grade, which presents its own set of challenges, even for the elementary facilitator. Students are still learning to identify letters, much less keyboard. Students are just beginning to learn the concept of saving their work to their space on the server, format basic documents, safely surf the internet, etc. The challenge here is to meet a wide range of technology proficiencies, even in first grade, to promote the use of technology to enhance learning.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts
Standard I for Technology Facilitators/Technology Leaders of the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) establishes the framework for the eight standards that guide technology facilitators and leaders. The Standards design is as follows: defining the standard, establishing performance standards, specifying a greater level of detail through performance indicators, and providing examples via performance tasks.
In addition to establishing the framework for subsequent standards, Standard I skills and concepts are generalizable across multiple hardware and software platforms. Standard I sets the tone for the position by guiding the Technology Facilitator/Technology Leader (TF/TL) with skills and a level of understanding to be a problem-solver. While the TF/TL may or may not have direct knowledge of technology to solve a problem, one can assist in finding appropriate solutions based on general knowledge of the technology genre.
The primary objective of Standard I is to provide the TF/TL with two commitments: to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of technology and to embed technology skills in the context of curriculum. The TF/TL doesn't just go through a workshop to become "qualified" to be a TF/TL. Through an ongoing commitment to professional development and research and a commitment to addressing curricular needs through the use of technology, the TF/TL accepts a position of being a member of the learning team rather than the sole role of information disseminator.
Standard I also addresses some of the basic distinctions between the role of Technology Facilitator and Technology Leader. The roles are similar and can be viewed as a continuum of knowledge depth and constituents served. The Technology Facilitator typically handles the day to day activities of schools, works with teachers closely in the classroom, and often deals with hardware on site. The Technology Leader assumes a broader role, is expected to have a greater depth of knowledge on the use of technology in teaching and learning, and works at the district level in setting policies and goals.
Within the realm of personal practice, I view Standard I as the willingness to accept the challenges of being a Technology Facilitator. Having the desire to integrate technology into curriculum and sharing that desire with teachers through the use of mentoring, sharing, modeling, and partnerships sets one apart from other teachers. While all the answers may not be apparent, the willingness to problem-solve at the local level and the presentation of the over-arching question, "how can we use technology to support learner's understandings of the concepts we teach?". Even if one is reluctant to step up and assume the role of Technology Facilitator, once that question emerges, there's no turning back.
Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
In addition to establishing the framework for subsequent standards, Standard I skills and concepts are generalizable across multiple hardware and software platforms. Standard I sets the tone for the position by guiding the Technology Facilitator/Technology Leader (TF/TL) with skills and a level of understanding to be a problem-solver. While the TF/TL may or may not have direct knowledge of technology to solve a problem, one can assist in finding appropriate solutions based on general knowledge of the technology genre.
The primary objective of Standard I is to provide the TF/TL with two commitments: to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of technology and to embed technology skills in the context of curriculum. The TF/TL doesn't just go through a workshop to become "qualified" to be a TF/TL. Through an ongoing commitment to professional development and research and a commitment to addressing curricular needs through the use of technology, the TF/TL accepts a position of being a member of the learning team rather than the sole role of information disseminator.
Standard I also addresses some of the basic distinctions between the role of Technology Facilitator and Technology Leader. The roles are similar and can be viewed as a continuum of knowledge depth and constituents served. The Technology Facilitator typically handles the day to day activities of schools, works with teachers closely in the classroom, and often deals with hardware on site. The Technology Leader assumes a broader role, is expected to have a greater depth of knowledge on the use of technology in teaching and learning, and works at the district level in setting policies and goals.
Within the realm of personal practice, I view Standard I as the willingness to accept the challenges of being a Technology Facilitator. Having the desire to integrate technology into curriculum and sharing that desire with teachers through the use of mentoring, sharing, modeling, and partnerships sets one apart from other teachers. While all the answers may not be apparent, the willingness to problem-solve at the local level and the presentation of the over-arching question, "how can we use technology to support learner's understandings of the concepts we teach?". Even if one is reluctant to step up and assume the role of Technology Facilitator, once that question emerges, there's no turning back.
Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences
ISTE's Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments is a two-fold process. The first step in integrating technology tools to aid student learning requires that lessons follow research-based best practice approaches to teaching, with or without technology. Technology Facilitators and Technology Leaders (TF/TL) assume a dual role - modeling well constructed lessons that mirror a constructivist approach to support higher-order thinking skills and providing teachers with the technology tools to integrate into the well designed lessons.
The first step that the Technology Faciliator begins the guiding process is to assist teachers in their self-reflection as to their proficiency with integrating technology using such tools as the LoTi framework. As students gain a clearer picture of their current proficiencies, the TF can guide teachers through the process of setting goals and moving along the contiuum to more authentic integration of technology tools and processes. The TF becomes a coach and a mentor, providing strong models of lessons in the classroom. This process can include informal professional learning communities, can be one-to-one conversations and can be project-based partnerships.
Standard II is not a separate step or entity from Standard I. The role of TF/TL continues to be that of researcher, adviser, and expert in the field on which teachers are able to rely. The essence of Standard II is to find authentic ways to embed technology into the current curriculum, requiring that the TF/TL are well versed in both.
In personal practice, this standard may be the most challenging. It requires a subtle, long-term social change in teaching practice. This standard will require that I continue professional development both in lesson design, utilizing resources from the backward design approach as well as technology skills and research. Our district's Strategic Plan has begun to tackle this task through the design of professional learning communities established to look at State standards and create KUDs- what students should Know, Understand, and Do-to ensure that we're designing lessons with the end result in mind.
Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
The first step that the Technology Faciliator begins the guiding process is to assist teachers in their self-reflection as to their proficiency with integrating technology using such tools as the LoTi framework. As students gain a clearer picture of their current proficiencies, the TF can guide teachers through the process of setting goals and moving along the contiuum to more authentic integration of technology tools and processes. The TF becomes a coach and a mentor, providing strong models of lessons in the classroom. This process can include informal professional learning communities, can be one-to-one conversations and can be project-based partnerships.
Standard II is not a separate step or entity from Standard I. The role of TF/TL continues to be that of researcher, adviser, and expert in the field on which teachers are able to rely. The essence of Standard II is to find authentic ways to embed technology into the current curriculum, requiring that the TF/TL are well versed in both.
In personal practice, this standard may be the most challenging. It requires a subtle, long-term social change in teaching practice. This standard will require that I continue professional development both in lesson design, utilizing resources from the backward design approach as well as technology skills and research. Our district's Strategic Plan has begun to tackle this task through the design of professional learning communities established to look at State standards and create KUDs- what students should Know, Understand, and Do-to ensure that we're designing lessons with the end result in mind.
Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
