Part 1:
Hello!
For those who hadn't had a chance to read my introduction on canvas:
My name is Jerry and I was born and raised in Chicago. I have my undergrad
Bachelors of Arts in Communication Arts: Media Studies from a small liberal
arts school in Illinois. I moved to the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas in
2017 and have since been with a charter school as a CTE teacher. I have taught
everything from theatre, digital communications, graphic design, video
production, and computer science. I very recently moved to the south Austin
area and am now teaching CTE Commercial Photography to 11th and 12th graders. I
also work as a freelance photographer and videographer since we all know,
teaching in its own is not enough to make a livable wage (*insert upside down
smiley emoji face*). I am a big foodie and enjoy going to new restaurants and
traveling to new spaces and parts of the world. I am a big live music fan and
spend most of my PTO traveling to different shows of my favorite artists near
and far. I have a large vinyl record collection (500+ last time I counted) and
collect old and new cameras that I restore, display, and use from to time. I am
nervous (yet excited) to get started with this masters program, but am trying
to stay optimistic and feel like it will be a challenging, yet enjoyable year.
My current professional goals are to get fully certified as a Texas state teacher and to get a 4.0 for all my graduate school classes I'll be taking until July 2024. My future professional goals is to be debt free in 5 years and to retire in 10. I would most likely continue to work, but I would do it for the love of the profession rather than the necessity to simply exist and sustain myself in this country. Once I have my masters, I think I would enjoy possibly teaching a few collegiate courses in my content as I think it would be a nice change of pace from all of my secondary educational experiences; but we shall see.
Part 2:
Describe and include the evaluation instrument/rubric being used in your organization (or selected for the assignment). Include a link to the instrument/rubric, or embed it within the post if that is feasible.
In the state of Texas, the general evaluation instrument used is the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS) and its rubric to evaluate its teachers and technology integration is explicitly mentioned throughout the rubric. My district uses its own teacher evaluation system called the Guideposts for Excellent Teaching (GET). The GET covers 5 guide posts (Content, Culture, Ownership, Using Data, and Beyond the Lesson) and 5 rankings for educators (PRE-NOVICE, NOVICE, PROFICIENT, ADVANCED, EXCEPTIONAL). Now in my opinion, the GET does not do a very good job at implementing and aligning ISTE integration for technology. There is lots of room for growth and improvement, but that won't stop the effort and goal to further expand campuses and classes with the ISTE standards.
Discuss at least two areas that illustrate good alignment between the ISTE technology use expectations (standards/guidance) and the teacher leader evaluation in place in your district/organization).
The areas in the GET that illustrate good alignment between the ISTE technology use expectation is actually the only areas of where technology is explicitly mentioned in the entire rubric. Under guidepost 1: content, in order for teachers to reach "Exceptional" ranking "teachers must make customizations to the unit/module that increase the rigor to be college ready (technology integration, project-based learning, etc.) That is the only instance where tech integration is mentioned and it is done in the most vague of ways. When comparing it to the T-TESS, there is no contest on who is actually pushing and attempting to align full tech integration with ISTE. My district has a lot of work to do and big shoes to fill in comparison to the state of Texas' rubric. Under almost every ranking of T-TESS, (Improvement needed, Developing, Proficient, Accomplished, and Distinguished) technology integration is mentioned, encouraged, and pushed by the state's evaluation. I am not aware on the why my district is lacking in that area, but I'm curious to find out during our time in this course. When looking at the 2.1-2.7 ISTE standards, again there is a consistent disconnect and assumptions that need to be made in order to fit any type of alignment between and GET and the ISTE. Learner, leader, citizen, collaborator, designer facilitator, and analyst could all be implied in this small mention of tech integration via the GET, but implications don't exactly bring the clarity, guidance, or focus needed for actual implementation.
Discuss areas that are not aligned or expectations that are included in ISTE guidance but missing in the evaluation tool in use within your school/organization.
To reiterate from my last response, this is kind of an easy question as there are very little to no alignment between the explicit guidance of the ISTE standards and my schools evaluation tool to gauge technology integration. When it comes to the ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN SCHOOLS (Shared Vision, Implementation Planning, Equitable Access, Prepared
Educators, Skilled and Sufficient Technical Support, High Quality Learning
Activities and Content, Ongoing Evaluation), the 7 ISTE Standards for students (Empowered Learner, Digital Citizen, Knowledge Constructor, Innovative Designer, Computational Thinker, Creative Communicator, Global Collaborator) and 2.1-.27 educator standards (Learner, leader, citizen, collaborator, designer facilitator, and analyst) you can very much allude and imply that underneath the GET rubric, there are areas that align directly to these items. However, the issue comes in the form that they are vague connections and that disconnect is creating gaps and confusion on how or where the standards are or are not being applied.
How might deficiencies or misalignments in the teacher/leader evaluation tool within your organization/district impact technology use in the classroom? What practices/suggestions from your readings and resources this week, might assist you in addressing areas of concern?
Having these deficiencies or misalignments in the GET evaluation tool within my district is impacting technology use in the classroom because teachers and their managers who evaluate them, are having little to no guidance in why, what, or how to implement these standards. It is our goal as (technology) educators to assist our scholars in being well rounded and responsible consumers of modern day tech. That goal becomes difficult when the language and standards (which is clearly important as the T-TESS has included it) are not made a priority so teachers and their students suffer and form gaps within their technological capacities. The impacts in the classroom can be seen in the form of educators choosing to not make technology a priority integration in the learning objectives thus robbing them and their scholars of creating a healthy and knowledgeable foundation in the advancements of current and new technologies.
In our class literature "Teach Boldly: Using Edtech for Social Good" by Jennifer Williams, chapter 1 discusses the essential of establishing a purpose for educators and students to see the changes and shift in their environment. I believe that if we as teachers realize the kinds of impact students could have by being well verse in technology, (inside and outside the classroom) then we can nurture that curiosity to become a healthy, thriving, and eventually, an impactful part of our society. Our main purpose and mission is to number one: keep students physically and emotionally safe at all times. If this is true and we established this as our full purpose on top of our content and class exams, then we'd be out of our minds to not do what we fully can to safely and responsibly teach our scholars the proper ways to handle and integrate technology in their lives. Now there are many educational theories of frameworks discussed in Max Frasier and Doug Hearrington's "Technology Coordinator's Handbook" such as direct instruction, situated cognition, Blooms taxonomy, and community of inquiry. These all have their proper time and space to thrive in the classroom, but the bottom line is ensuring students and all stakeholders are progressing in all areas of their lives; technology being no exception. We cannot avoid the progress that technology has in our schools and in our society. "Moore’s law, prediction made by American engineer Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors per silicon chip doubles every year." (1) As we have seen in our devices, tech will only continue to get bigger, better, faster, and stronger. It would be doing a continued disservice to ourselves and our students if we did not properly prepare for what is here and is to come. Full technology integration with purpose and following ISTE's standards (regardless if our district evaluations include them or not) can set the tone and pathway for intellectual and responsible young adults making their way into the world we'll leave behind.
(1) Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, August 11). Moore’s law. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/Moores-law
Comments
Post a Comment