Andrew


 * __3/4/10 CLASS NOTES:__**


 * Wikispaces is a fantastic tool for completing assignments, surveys, or projects collaboratively! (Even across different class sections!)
 * Set "Manage Wiki" to private to avoid the public from seeing your wikispace - protected means they can see it, but not change it.
 * Private upgrade of wikispaces is complimentary for public educators.
 * The history tab can identify a violation of fair use or copyright infringement.
 * Only one person may edit a wikispace page at one time.
 * NETS = National Educational Technology Standards (Students, Teachers, & Administrators) - professional development for faculty/staff to ensure ethical use of technology
 * ISTE = International Society Technology Education
 * ISTE "Essential Conditions" are required for safety when using technology!

**__03/11/10 ASSIGNMENT - Read ALL 4 NETS off of ISTE Website__**
After reading the NETS for students, teachers, administrators, and facilitators, I feel as though the standards are excellent examples of the variety of uses technology can offer as a valuable tool. I also feel as though the standards mean nothing unless funded properly and accessible to teachers and students in public education. Technology by itself is not functional until employees are given the necessary training to utilize the technology tool(s) to its fullest potential; this concept requires time and funding devoted to the professional development of technology integration in instruction. I was also disappointed considering I was under the assumption it would also provide guidelines and proper use policy for technology. The digital citizenship section does address some guidlines. (Example below).


 * **Digital Citizenship** ||
 * || Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior. Students: ||
 * a. || advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * b. || exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, learning, and productivity. ||
 * c. || demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning. ||
 * d. || exhibit leadership for digital citizenship. ||  ||

=__03/11/10 NOTES__=

[|www.Schooltechleadership.org] - (CASTLE) Dedicated Educational Technology for Administrators

"Online Learning". I would personally define "online learning" into two facets - Independent versus Guided (Teacher Directed). Independent online learning is a wonderful asset for school districts to target students responsible enough to discipline their own learning and drive their own ambitions - specifically young adults who want to get ahead in undergraduate education or learn at an accelerated pace from the general student population. Guided online learning is a different concept where the teacher/professor integrates technology into his.her instruction as an additional tool.

Embed link allows you to copy video into webpage / wikispace!

[|www.KICKYOUTUBE.com] will allow you to download youtube video if restricted from website!

**__3/18/10 READING ASSIGNMENT - pages 11 to 56__**
Reading about the incorporation of technology (computers) at these schools I made a few revelations as did the author for "do's" and "do not's" of technology incorporation.


 * //St.Mary's//**: The first school seemed to stress the success of giving teachers ownership in the decision-making, input, and integration of the computers; it was also nice seeing how the school gave each teacher a laptop with internet access from home to stress the importance of having technology in the classroom and instruction. I also liked how this school gave students assignments that challenged them to be critical thinkers and think outside the box. Clearly, the first school's downfall was not coordinating the curriculum for technology district-wide - clearly another essential.


 * //Harriet Tubman//**: I thought the second school demonstrated the importance of thinking outside the box for funding technology in a school since most districts can't come up with it all alone within the allocated budget. Their resourcing of title I funds and support from non-goverment and government no-profit foundations was impressive; however, I did find myself questioning what happened to the school's year-old apple computers. Were they trashed, refurbished, recycled, or given away - I would have appreciated more information. This chapter also hit home regarding the uncomfortable temperatures the students were forced to tolerate - why are students asked to learn in 90 plus degree temperatures in the 21st century - does Piaget's hierarchy of needs ring any bells???


 * //Longworth//**: This school I thought was particularly sad considering their network was down 1/4 of the day, and the inadequate lab setups. Clearly, teachers were not given ownership into the school's technology integration as the majority of teachers were using overheads rather than the smart board technology. I also found it interesting how the district did not adequately formalize a plan to maintain or upgrade the technology it integrated. As a future principal, their AUP policy needs some serious revision. I also noticed that allowing students to work in parallel rows encourages students to wander off-task since they are not as easily monitored by the teacher.


 * //Washington-Connors//**: This particular principal was one of my favorites when he said, "Technology is a good support system, but nothing is as important as the teachers themselves. Nothing replaces a good teacher who cares about kids." The faculty was clearly given input into the integration of the technology and software. I particularly enjoyed learning of their reading motivation program and auditory suppor program. The scanner was also interesting as a quick form of formative assessment, although I was disappointed to learn most of the computers were not networked for online capability.


 * //Mitchell//**: This school quite frankly was ridiculous, and I felt bad for the technology director. Clearly, the school was half-assed in their integration of the technology; however, the classroom jeopardy seemed like a wonderful software for the reinforcement of the curriculum.

[|www.slideshare.net]

[|www.delicious.com]

**__3/25/10 Reading Assignment - pages 57-96__**
These pages defined school integration of technology as widely diverse and independent. The current trend in schools today is data-driven instruction, yet some schools assume in their philosophy that by simply handing a student a laptop, they deserve a gold ribbon with a cookie (St.John's). My question as an administrator would be what difference are those laptops making, where are the safety guidlines and parameters for these mature and power technological tools we are handing to our students, and most importantly, where is the data that supports positive educational findings? In other words, are we looking at the icing on the cake, or the inside?

There is no doubt that the integration of technology into the way we present information to our child is paramont during the 21st century; afterall, we don't ask parents and students to come to school in a horse and carriage or read by candlelight anymore - to ignore its dominance would be ignorant and naive of its infinite capabilities. For some reason, there seems to be a disconnect amoung these schools, except Western Hills, when it comes to universally defining the expectations for the integration of computer technology. Are teachers being told that the professional expectation for integrating technology is to improve metacognition, student comprehension, critical thinking, and provide assessment data that can be used to differentiate and target specific instruction? A common assessment with a timeframe is a fantastic example (Western Hills) of defining this expectation; however, it's evident that there is an inadequacy to professional development regarding technological training in a field that expires daily with the newest, brightest, and best software/hardware!

As a teacher, I feel the pressures of the never-ending amendment and revision of our job description and the avalanche of responsibilities that never ceases to accumlate from year to year. One such additional responsibility is now the expectation of data-driven instruction - most efficiently compiled through the integration of technology; yet, our framework for public schooling, the educational day, still restricts most teachers to a single planning period. Is it fair as administrators to expect a full harvest, best practice, from our teachers when we deprive them of an adequate amount of time to maximize the quality of instruction - specifically, data driven instruction. If I were to predict the future, a change is brewing that will modify the educational framework to better accomodate instructing our students, including the full integration of technology in our schools, provide teachers the additional time desperately needed to collaborate, analyze data, and prepare instruction, and support the contineuing education of technology in the 21st century. Longer school days? Probably. Change in funding the educational system to fully integrate technology? Probably. Only time will tell... // Andrew,

Your reflection really hits home with me when you write about the pressures of never-ending amendments, etc. It does seem that way oftentimes. I believe that part of the commitment, focus, and vision that all educational entities must adopt invariably includes maximizing time to integrate the tools and data into daily instruction. The change you speak of IS brewing and is, I believe, inevitable. The framework will need to be modified, as you say, and we will hopefully be better for it. Many changes, however, need to happen before it can come to pass. I wonder what it will all look like (or should look like)?

David //


 * __4/8/10 Reading Assignment - p.99 to 186__**


 * SPRINGDALE**: Clearly, this high school has sufficient funding for purchasing equipment in the school and has done so; however, there is an apparent disconnect to the necessary training for utilizing these computers most efficiently! There also seems to be a lack of technology education and integration taking place in undergraduate and graduate education in training teachers to use technology effectively with instruction.


 * HARRISON**: I thought this elementary school clearly demonstrates not only the necessity of training personnel on how to link technology with direct instruction, but also the necessity of finding the time and making the time for our students who may not know how to use it! This clearly means that technology must be included within the context of the curriculum so adequate time is given to spend on the operation of the technology in addition to learning the content.


 * WOODVALE**: This school clearly emphasized the points made at Harrison, but also indicated that new teachers could actually use the technology improperly if they do not have a strong foundation in instructional pedagogy. Pflaum descrived the technology actually replacing the content; he also pointed out that the more experienced teachers had a tendency to supplement the content with technology rather than replace it. On the other hand, there were many older teachers who were not familiarized enough with the technology to dare incorporate it.


 * EMERSON/CITY:** This chapter was interesting reading of the struggle as an educator between "constructivism", utilizing and incorporating technology within the curiculum and instruction, and "behaviorist-based", holding teachers accountable for the pressure of annual yearly progress (AYP) and standardized testing. Unfortunately, I think many times we miss the opportunity to support both these ideals by stressing the importance of both working together in a school!


 * LAMBERT:** I thought this school clearly demonstrated how sometimes teachers will not challenge students to think critically with the integration of technology. The excel activity was a perfect example of this. Are students being asked to synthesize, analyze, evaluate, compare and contrast, or are they just being asked to recall.


 * COPYRIGHT**: As a music educator, I am well-versed in the legality of copyright in education and current law. Unfortunately, many teachers do not realize that simply because something is copyrighted, does not mean you can't use it! Many professional organizations have put together pamphlets or booklights regarding copyright law and infringement for educators - one of them is the Music Educators National Conference (MENC). I think offering professional development on this topic is crucial, because almost everything now-a-days has some copyright and professionals should be taught how to legally access those resources for improving the quality of their instruction and content!

Copyright - Immediate (C) - "All Rights Reserved" Create Commons - Choice (CC) - "Some Rights Reserved" See [|CREATIVECOMMONS]

Briefly...
**Attribution** means: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit. **Noncommercial** means: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only. **No Derivative Works** means: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it. **Share Alike** means: You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

__**4/15/10 Article Presentations Food-for-Thought**__


 * At least 50% of administrators/districts are NOT generating a supporting framework for technology that includes fiscal management, training, expectations and support
 * Incorporate differentiated (tiered) training by outside agencies and own faculty volunteers
 * Require technology and instructional integration as part of the evaluation process
 * Plagiarism - try www.turnitin.com