Online Discussion
15 years ago
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Session 3 Technology Integration Hierarchy
Session 3 Technology Integration Hierarchy
Dr. Newberry's Technology Hierarchy really resonated with me. It illuminated the path I see technology following in classrooms, and the struggles and successes that come with implementing technology in a classroom. Of course, I could see myself in the hierarchy, but I could also see my peers, my school and the schools I work with, struggling to ascend the hierarchy. Clearly, technology integration can be expressed in a hierarchy; however, I would like to suggest another category to to a technology integration hierarchy.
Dr. Newberry described the fourth level as having students use technology to p[resent their understanding of their learning, through multimedia presentations, music, video, and/or graphics, and utilize the resources of the internet to find and bind new knowledge, and as a place to store and retrieve their learning portfolios. In this level, students decide how technology is to be used in their expression of their learning. Students are, in fact, empowered to have choice.
But my experience of this level of the hierarchy is different, and I think a new level my need to be applied. There is a level where the teacher uses technology actively in his or her lesson design and presentation, where students are required to use technology as a tool in their learning, however, in my proposed new level, the student do not control how or when technology is used. The teacher is the arbiter of the why AND what of student's technology choice. This level would fall somewhere between the third level, of using technology with students, and the fourth level, of students choosing how to express their learning through technology.
This new level is most often seen in the elementary school setting, where emerging skill and proficiency of technology use by students is being guided by the teacher, or at schools or in classrooms where limited equipment and curricular time causes the teacher to give explicit and detailed instruction in how and what technology will be used by students to express their learning. In this level, students still use technology to express their learning, however, the teacher decides what technology will be used. Classroom projects are created, but the use of technology is dictated by the teacher, not the student.
I think that even the final level of the hierarchy can see this type of dictated use. I see, in my capacity as a new teacher support provider, and my role in instructional technology, classrooms, and now even schools, where the use of technology is ingrained in the psyche of the school, where students and teachers use technology seamlessly throughout the day, but the students rarely if ever choose the use of technology.
Perhaps this choice needs to become more widespread in the elementary environment. Empowering students to choose the method and form of technology to express their learning would imply a higher order of both thinking skills and technology use.
Dr. Newberry's Technology Hierarchy really resonated with me. It illuminated the path I see technology following in classrooms, and the struggles and successes that come with implementing technology in a classroom. Of course, I could see myself in the hierarchy, but I could also see my peers, my school and the schools I work with, struggling to ascend the hierarchy. Clearly, technology integration can be expressed in a hierarchy; however, I would like to suggest another category to to a technology integration hierarchy.
Dr. Newberry described the fourth level as having students use technology to p[resent their understanding of their learning, through multimedia presentations, music, video, and/or graphics, and utilize the resources of the internet to find and bind new knowledge, and as a place to store and retrieve their learning portfolios. In this level, students decide how technology is to be used in their expression of their learning. Students are, in fact, empowered to have choice.
But my experience of this level of the hierarchy is different, and I think a new level my need to be applied. There is a level where the teacher uses technology actively in his or her lesson design and presentation, where students are required to use technology as a tool in their learning, however, in my proposed new level, the student do not control how or when technology is used. The teacher is the arbiter of the why AND what of student's technology choice. This level would fall somewhere between the third level, of using technology with students, and the fourth level, of students choosing how to express their learning through technology.
This new level is most often seen in the elementary school setting, where emerging skill and proficiency of technology use by students is being guided by the teacher, or at schools or in classrooms where limited equipment and curricular time causes the teacher to give explicit and detailed instruction in how and what technology will be used by students to express their learning. In this level, students still use technology to express their learning, however, the teacher decides what technology will be used. Classroom projects are created, but the use of technology is dictated by the teacher, not the student.
I think that even the final level of the hierarchy can see this type of dictated use. I see, in my capacity as a new teacher support provider, and my role in instructional technology, classrooms, and now even schools, where the use of technology is ingrained in the psyche of the school, where students and teachers use technology seamlessly throughout the day, but the students rarely if ever choose the use of technology.
Perhaps this choice needs to become more widespread in the elementary environment. Empowering students to choose the method and form of technology to express their learning would imply a higher order of both thinking skills and technology use.
Activity Log
Monday, January 26
Complete more modules for the CITI research course
Tuesday, January 27
Listened to podcast and took notes
Completed more modules for the CITI research course
Met with Dr. Newberry
Wednesday, January 28
Posted my blog on session 3
Thursday, January 29
Completed more modules for the CITI research course
Commented on fellow student's blogs.
Friday, January 30
Completed more modules for the CITI research course
Completed Project 1 proposal
Friday, January 23, 2009
Session 2
Activity Log for Session 2-
Wednesday, January 21: Created bloglist of all members of ETEC 623
Wednesday, January 21: Began commenting on members blogs
Thursday, January 22: Met with Dr. Kamusikiri about program
Thursday, January 22: Continued science lesson series for research project
Friday, January 23: Added to my Session 2 blog, and continued to comment on others
Management vs Leadership
I have been struck recently how leadership without management causes both to break down. We have been part of an EETT grant, which ends it three year cycle this year. Part of our grant that was developed included both IT support and IT staff development and coaching. As we end our grant funding for this program, district money was supposed to take over, and continue this powerful and successful combination of support. Of course, as with the entire country, drastic budget shortfalls cause our district to almost immediately drastically cut back on this support. Already, the use of technology district-wide has suffered, and the it seems that much of the progress we made in the 3 years of the grant has been decreased.
We just don't have the money to continue much of the leadership activities that moved this grant along.
Now, is it management of resources that caused this, or lack of leadership?
To me, it is both. We built into the grant ways the district could fund this initiative beyond its federal funded life, but we did not consider the drastic cuts that would mandated by the financial meltdown.
We also did not create a leadership core that could operate without significant funding. We did not consider how we move ahead in technology leadership with viable funding to continue with trainings, workshops, inservices, and to continue to push programs that would propel our program forward. So, we watch as much of what was built the last 3 years languishes in unfunded stagnation.
I suppose that the way to move from management of what is left of our district's IT program to leadership in innovation is to move from a centralized, district-wide focus to individual movement in classrooms or schools, supporting changes at the classroom and site level instead of trying to maintain district-wide changes without district-wide funding. Leadership once again at the grassroot level. And we will continue to manage the remaining equipment, district and state-wide technology expectations, and refinement of the current instructional practices throughout the district. However, leadership with new ideas, new initiatives, new equipment and new technologies is perhaps going to be, as necessitated by the budget crisis, smaller and more client-based, and not so much system-wide in scope.
Anyway, this is what Dr. Newberry's lecture brought up in my thinking.
As a leader, I am going to have to find ways to continue to focus my resources to improve the school, not just improve our technology, since that technology we have will need to be enough for us for awhile. As for management, I am befuddled with the thought that we need to find ways of managing our staff training needs without money for such support- How to manage the need to keep staff current with instructional design and implementation, without the resources to do so. Do we create staff teams of trainers who coach through the PLC structure?
And how can leadership skills in this crisis trump the need to manage the crisis first?
I suppose that if the answers to this were easy, we all would not need to be in a leadership class. We would just know the answers. It's great to be in such a class, with a format of exploration of ideas and professional support that will, however, give us the ability to find the answer to management vs leadership in the age of diminished funding.
Wednesday, January 21: Created bloglist of all members of ETEC 623
Wednesday, January 21: Began commenting on members blogs
Thursday, January 22: Met with Dr. Kamusikiri about program
Thursday, January 22: Continued science lesson series for research project
Friday, January 23: Added to my Session 2 blog, and continued to comment on others
Management vs Leadership
I have been struck recently how leadership without management causes both to break down. We have been part of an EETT grant, which ends it three year cycle this year. Part of our grant that was developed included both IT support and IT staff development and coaching. As we end our grant funding for this program, district money was supposed to take over, and continue this powerful and successful combination of support. Of course, as with the entire country, drastic budget shortfalls cause our district to almost immediately drastically cut back on this support. Already, the use of technology district-wide has suffered, and the it seems that much of the progress we made in the 3 years of the grant has been decreased.
We just don't have the money to continue much of the leadership activities that moved this grant along.
Now, is it management of resources that caused this, or lack of leadership?
To me, it is both. We built into the grant ways the district could fund this initiative beyond its federal funded life, but we did not consider the drastic cuts that would mandated by the financial meltdown.
We also did not create a leadership core that could operate without significant funding. We did not consider how we move ahead in technology leadership with viable funding to continue with trainings, workshops, inservices, and to continue to push programs that would propel our program forward. So, we watch as much of what was built the last 3 years languishes in unfunded stagnation.
I suppose that the way to move from management of what is left of our district's IT program to leadership in innovation is to move from a centralized, district-wide focus to individual movement in classrooms or schools, supporting changes at the classroom and site level instead of trying to maintain district-wide changes without district-wide funding. Leadership once again at the grassroot level. And we will continue to manage the remaining equipment, district and state-wide technology expectations, and refinement of the current instructional practices throughout the district. However, leadership with new ideas, new initiatives, new equipment and new technologies is perhaps going to be, as necessitated by the budget crisis, smaller and more client-based, and not so much system-wide in scope.
Anyway, this is what Dr. Newberry's lecture brought up in my thinking.
As a leader, I am going to have to find ways to continue to focus my resources to improve the school, not just improve our technology, since that technology we have will need to be enough for us for awhile. As for management, I am befuddled with the thought that we need to find ways of managing our staff training needs without money for such support- How to manage the need to keep staff current with instructional design and implementation, without the resources to do so. Do we create staff teams of trainers who coach through the PLC structure?
And how can leadership skills in this crisis trump the need to manage the crisis first?
I suppose that if the answers to this were easy, we all would not need to be in a leadership class. We would just know the answers. It's great to be in such a class, with a format of exploration of ideas and professional support that will, however, give us the ability to find the answer to management vs leadership in the age of diminished funding.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Session 1`, part 2
Okay, so here is my actual post, not just my test post to see how all this works. I have been active in Instructional Technology for the last 20 years, and the three lenses we are looking at leadership through (Teacher, administrator, technology support/curriculum development) are all areas I have been part of, in one way or another. In this class, I will be focusing on two of those areas- the teacher perspective, and technology support/curriculum development.
As a teacher, I am currently involved in action research as part of my connections with UCR's Copernicus Project, and I am combining this with research and lesson development for my Thesis through this program. In this, I am trying to offer leadership, both at my site and throughout the arts community, in developing ways to integrate the content areas with VAPA activities and strategies, and marrying them together with technology.
As a staff developer/technology support provider, I am now working with new teachers through the BTSA program, and using discussion boards as a vehicle to give support and reflection opportunities to the new teachers that I serve. I am also active in writing and developing grants and program funding for the continued use of technology in the Visual and Performing Arts.
As I mull in my mind options for my projects, two come to mind. Of course, I will continue working on my Action Research project, which will fulfill the Research Validated Use of Technology Requirement. My students are receiving instruction in 6th grade science using the 5E lesson design- Then, they are using music creation software, such as GarageBand, to write and record songs that represent their learning in that specific content area. Right now, my students are creating songs about earthquakes and plate tectonics, and they will next create songs about heat and temperature.
My second project is still a little vague, but I want to connect the use of technology and the creation, production and presentation of content-related theater arts or video production. Don't know what it will look like yet, but it is the technology support area of curriculum development that I wish to pursue.
ACTIVITY LOG-
Thursday, January 15- Listened to lecture, took notes, established my blog and blog address.
Saturday, January 17- Reflected upon the lecture, and the possible projects I will pursue. I responded to three other blogs.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
ETEC 623/Educational Leadership
I am Chris MarkerMorse, a 6th grade teacher in the Riverside Unified School District, and a grad students in the Instructional Technology program at CSUSB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
