Greetings Fellow Lamar Cohorts!
I have prayed and have my fingers crossed that this google.doc link works. I guess if it doesn't work then I may have to try standing on my head!
Hopefully your accessing this google.doc is as simple as you highlighting the link below, right click to copy and then paste it to your web browser.
Please let me know if it works!
Jacque
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12lfggH37jsFN_Fjg-fTm-2xdogGE876DC_fB482fNj0/edit?hl=en&authkey=CIbl588G#
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
EDLD 5352 EA1189 Web Conference: March 6, 2011
Reflection on Web Conference EDLD 5352 – SP2 II – EA1189 from March 6, 2011
First of all, my preconceived conception and limited prior knowledge of web conferences has forever been altered since participating in the March 6, 2011 EDLD 5352 session. I am ever so grateful that I could not be seen by others, which I thought, wrongly would occur. I knew that participants would somehow be connected and able to communicate with one another, but I had not realized that it would be by way of typing (keyboarding) questions, answers and comments. And, I already knew that we needed to jockey for position early (thank you, Carrie) to gain access and request permission to enter.
With my first web conference behind me, I can honestly say that I will most definitely participate in future ones. I was relieved to learn that I was not alone in being unable to locate specific assignment web-links. Not wanting to be deterred I had opted to turn to google.com to locate those links and was successful. So, when Dr. Abernathy gave instruction to turn to google.com or other search engines when searching for links, I felt rather proud of myself.
I felt a combination of relief and frustration at seeing other participants type in questions I wanted to ask, but by the time I could enter a simplistic sentence or comment the conference had moved on without me. Having said that, you really need to be a speed reader and typist in order to keep up. Some good information was shared (TK20, blogging problems and solutions, other links, etc.).
Hopefully, I will be able to utilize this type of technology as a campus administrator, perhaps for department meetings, or maybe as a community forum for parents that are unable to attend traditional meetings.
First of all, my preconceived conception and limited prior knowledge of web conferences has forever been altered since participating in the March 6, 2011 EDLD 5352 session. I am ever so grateful that I could not be seen by others, which I thought, wrongly would occur. I knew that participants would somehow be connected and able to communicate with one another, but I had not realized that it would be by way of typing (keyboarding) questions, answers and comments. And, I already knew that we needed to jockey for position early (thank you, Carrie) to gain access and request permission to enter.
With my first web conference behind me, I can honestly say that I will most definitely participate in future ones. I was relieved to learn that I was not alone in being unable to locate specific assignment web-links. Not wanting to be deterred I had opted to turn to google.com to locate those links and was successful. So, when Dr. Abernathy gave instruction to turn to google.com or other search engines when searching for links, I felt rather proud of myself.
I felt a combination of relief and frustration at seeing other participants type in questions I wanted to ask, but by the time I could enter a simplistic sentence or comment the conference had moved on without me. Having said that, you really need to be a speed reader and typist in order to keep up. Some good information was shared (TK20, blogging problems and solutions, other links, etc.).
Hopefully, I will be able to utilize this type of technology as a campus administrator, perhaps for department meetings, or maybe as a community forum for parents that are unable to attend traditional meetings.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Blogging Post #3: The Plan: National Technology Plan
At first I didn’t much want to read such a lengthy assignment, but the more I read, the more I had to read. This was the first time I had read about “personalized learning supports” which is another way of referring to individualized; only “personalized” appears to give more ownership of the learning process to the student(s). One of the goals stated, “All learners will have engaging and empowering experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society” hit home with me. I appreciate the fact that ethics has become such a huge part of this learning plan.
I am totally in awe of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), “principles” that “reflect the way students take in and process information” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). A priority number one of the UDL is to serve every learner, especially the underserved beginning with Pre-K through adulthood. The majority of educators acknowledge that technology provides infinite access to a wider array of information than does the traditional classroom setting. Like the UDL, I believe that the earlier we can provide access to the underserved learners, the sooner their transition academically, technologically and socially will begin.
Assessing the technological aptitude of educators as well as the students is a target area for administrators. That data should then be taken and used to establish professional development sessions for educators and as a means to identify areas of needed support for them as well. This is referred to as “Using assessment data to drive continuous improvement” which when done properly enables educators to become more effective.
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
I am totally in awe of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), “principles” that “reflect the way students take in and process information” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). A priority number one of the UDL is to serve every learner, especially the underserved beginning with Pre-K through adulthood. The majority of educators acknowledge that technology provides infinite access to a wider array of information than does the traditional classroom setting. Like the UDL, I believe that the earlier we can provide access to the underserved learners, the sooner their transition academically, technologically and socially will begin.
Assessing the technological aptitude of educators as well as the students is a target area for administrators. That data should then be taken and used to establish professional development sessions for educators and as a means to identify areas of needed support for them as well. This is referred to as “Using assessment data to drive continuous improvement” which when done properly enables educators to become more effective.
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Blogging Post #2: TLRPT Reflection: The Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology
Of interest is that since the plan was adopted, that districts have been given even more flexibility to make their own decisions regarding technology. And, once again the infamous No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 bore its full weight upon the great State of Texas’ educational agencies with led to additional updates. This was significant in that the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology (TLRPT) goals and objectives had to align with NCLB’s to insure equal access to funding.
I completely agree with the TLRPT’s definition of need to address technology for young scholars of the 21st Century. As advances in technology rapidly change in the community and the work force, districts and campuses must also change. Unfortunately antiquated classroom computers and personnel no longer versed in the latest and greatest of intellectual properties if preventing too many students from moving forward in a technologically advancing world. By acknowledging the urgency of the competitive nature of global technology needs, the great State of Texas has taken the first of many steps of corrective action with which educational challenges, technological wise, can be overcome.
As society becomes increasingly more dependent upon automation and unforeseen technology, so must educational institutions push for more instruction and practical application of technology in the classroom. The TLRPT has stated is better, “Educational systems must consider this rapid pace of change and plan for a future that serves all citizens.” Those citizens begin as students, somewhere! And educational administrators from the district level to the campus face the daunting task of finding highly qualified tech-savvy teachers that actually more than the students do.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/EktronAttach/FinalCombinedLRPT2020.pdf
I completely agree with the TLRPT’s definition of need to address technology for young scholars of the 21st Century. As advances in technology rapidly change in the community and the work force, districts and campuses must also change. Unfortunately antiquated classroom computers and personnel no longer versed in the latest and greatest of intellectual properties if preventing too many students from moving forward in a technologically advancing world. By acknowledging the urgency of the competitive nature of global technology needs, the great State of Texas has taken the first of many steps of corrective action with which educational challenges, technological wise, can be overcome.
As society becomes increasingly more dependent upon automation and unforeseen technology, so must educational institutions push for more instruction and practical application of technology in the classroom. The TLRPT has stated is better, “Educational systems must consider this rapid pace of change and plan for a future that serves all citizens.” Those citizens begin as students, somewhere! And educational administrators from the district level to the campus face the daunting task of finding highly qualified tech-savvy teachers that actually more than the students do.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/EktronAttach/FinalCombinedLRPT2020.pdf
Blogging Post #1: Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support (TLRPT)
I guess I should not have been surprised to see that the author of some of our weekly readings, Prensky, was mentioned in the very line of the Executive Summary for the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020 (TLRPT). Of the four areas of the TLRPT, I found Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support to be more relevant in the scheme of things. By that I mean as it ties in with budgets. As district and campus administrators are scambling to address seemingly dire budget shortfalls individuals in this area will be able to actively participate in assessing technological needs, addressing visions and goals and estasblishing benchmarks when developing technologically based long range plans. From what I have read, the TLRPT can provide well equipped experts to districts/campuses to help them develop a more efficeint and effective use of their current technology while gathering data that could, in turn, be used to puruse grants or other funding entities.
Educational leaders are saddled with the challenge of meeting technology needs of their shifting diverse student populations as well as other areas of district operations such as transportation, maintenance and cafeteria support. Failure of technology in any of these three district operations will result in untold numbers of calls to not only superintendents but to school board members as well.
By utilizing the TLRPT data that is then applied to the STaR Chart an analysis of that data can also be used to furhter assist a district/campus with meeting the ever looming No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements. And, by referring to the STaR Chart, administrators will be able to identify their district’s technological advancement, or lack of, and incorporate that information into the goals of the district as a whole.
Educational leaders are saddled with the challenge of meeting technology needs of their shifting diverse student populations as well as other areas of district operations such as transportation, maintenance and cafeteria support. Failure of technology in any of these three district operations will result in untold numbers of calls to not only superintendents but to school board members as well.
By utilizing the TLRPT data that is then applied to the STaR Chart an analysis of that data can also be used to furhter assist a district/campus with meeting the ever looming No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements. And, by referring to the STaR Chart, administrators will be able to identify their district’s technological advancement, or lack of, and incorporate that information into the goals of the district as a whole.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Students Against Testing
In researching small group testing (my action research plan) I found an interesting website called "Students Against Testing". They have listed some novel alternatives to state/district assessments as well as providing links to current articles regarding test problems/issues. If you can, take a look. I have listed the link below.
Jacque
http://www.alternative-learning.org/?cat=8
Jacque
http://www.alternative-learning.org/?cat=8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)