Web Conference

Date: Saturday, March 12
Time: 11:30 a.m.

I love the web conference; however, as our professor stated, it gets too chaotic with a large number of people. It's hard to follow when too many people are posting questions, replies, etc. I found that first typing the name of the person to whom I was responding reduced some of the confusion. In addition, I would not use this format with more than one class at a time--25 to 30 students would be the limit. It is a great format that allows for immediate responses and discussion, but the timeline has to be set in stone from the very beginning and differentiated in order to allow participants to make plans to attend. All in all I liked it, but like most participants, would like it more on a smaller, more manageable scale.

Action Plan

Objectives: Utilize Atomic Learning website and train teachers in this regard in order to provide 24/7 access to training and support in assistive technology.
Simplify access and use of technology in order to more regularly integrate technology and apply this learning to improve student learning.
Provide differentiated instruction/professional development.
(Allow educators to view tutorials on lots of common software programs including Groupwise, Windows Movie Maker, Microsoft Word, and much more. These tutorials walk educators through the steps, like inserting an image into PowerPoint, or whatever is typed into the search field. This website also offers resources that take us through the process of learning and then applying.)

Data: District technology facilitator meets with campus staff development team at the end of the school year to analyze data: STaR Chart, AYP, AEIS, and the survey given at the end of this year regarding campus staff development. The survey is given at the end of every school year to assess how relevant and meaningful staff development was and what teachers would like to see offered the following year. One common theme we encountered this year on the staff development team involved easier and more regular access to technology and differentiation of technology staff development sessions.

Action Steps
District technology facilitator meets with campus staff development team

Staff development team meets with district technology facilitator after first professional development day

Atomic learning introduced to campus staff

Staff development team leader meets with department

Department team meetings

Responsibilities
-Familiarize team with purpose/function of Atomic Learning website and train them to navigate and use website to integrate assistive technology

-Team divides into groups of two or three and targets technology weakness.
-Identifies one weakness and utilize Atomic Learning to improve understanding.
-Develop lesson according to what they learned and integrate new learning into classroom practice

-Each staff development team members meets with his/her department to introduce atomic learning and provide goals/objectives of training
-Team leader will lead department through training in order to familiarize them with Atomic Learning.

-Department will then divide into teams according to familiarity and comfort with technology—beginning, intermediate, advanced.
-Team will target weaknesses, utilize Atomic Learning, and develop a lesson around what they learned that involves integration of technology/new learning.
-Teams identify weaknesses and utilize Atomic Learning to target and improve those weaknesses
-Team utilizes new learning and integrates into classroom practice/instruction.
-Team also provide opportunities for students to utilize atomic learning for their own learning and utilizes the differentiated instruction atomic learning provides to improve student learning.

Resources
-Computers on campus with internet access
-Website: http://atomiclearning.com
-District username and password for atomic learning access
-Projector screen and computer for Atomic Learning power-point
-Same as above and lesson plansClassroom; computer with internet access; projector screen; Atomic Learning overview handout
-Campus Computer Lab
-Classroom with computer/internet access

Timeline
-One of the required summer professional development days/2011
-Summer professional development day (immediately following first PF day)/2011

-First day campus staff development day (before start of school). Introductory session is 45 minutes. (August 2011)
-½ staff development day before start of school. Sessions are offered in morning and afternoon in order to best utilize campus computer labs/access to resources. (August 2011)
-Once a week for first semester (collaborative teams occur once a week all year; however, the first collaborative teams will be geared toward use of this new technology)
(Sept-Dec 2011)

Evidence of Success: Teacher feedback from surveys issued by staff development team; Student Progress Reports; student assessment data; student grade averages; student feedback

Evaluation Process: 1). Staff development team develops and issues four surveys throughout the first twelve weeks of school to departments that solicit feedback on their use of Atomic Learning and what they’ve gained from this resource.
2). Collaborative teams analyze student assessment data in order to determine if their new learning is improving their delivery of information and classroom practice as evidenced by student assessment for learning.
3). Collaborative teams develop surveys for students in order to solicit feedback on their personal use of Atomic Learning and what they’ve gained from this resource.
***The first semester will be focused on this resource; however, the intention is to use this resource throughout the year. In addition, collaborative teams are already fully functioning, so they understand when to meet, how to analyze data, and utilize this time to evaluate new learning and show evidence of success

star

More PowerPoint presentations from Tom Jones

National Goals

Under the Obama administration, more attention is being paid to education. Currently, 39% of our citizens hold a college degree. One of the goals of this administration is to increase that percentage to 60% (by 2020). In addition, another goal is to close the achievement gap so that all students are successful. We, then, need to do a lot with a little. We need to capitalize on cost-effective resources in order to improve education in our country and achieve these goals. We need to much better prepare our students to compete and succeed in this global economy. In order to meet these goals, American education isn’t simply tweaked. It is totally transformed through the use of technology and the vast amount of opportunity it provides. In regard to learning, technology enables us to cater that learning to the individual, provide relevant and engaging learning experiences (experiences that truly translate beyond the classroom walls) and improve assessment. Technology improves teaching by allowing us to move beyond our often isolated state. It connects us to a world we don’t otherwise “see” or experience in our traditional school setting. It allows our students, then, to have authentic learning experiences. Effective professional development is at the heart of this transformation, as without it, many of our teachers remain digital immigrants. And we must institute the changes rapidly in order to meet our goals. Along with the two goals listed above, there are five goals that offer more specific recommendations. The goals are as follows: provide students with learning experiences that translate and allow them to be productive 21st century citizens; use technology to measure that which matters in this global world and use assessment data to measure its effectiveness; supporting teachers throughout the process; 24/7 access to infrastructure; and using technology to improve learning outcomes. We must provide our teachers with training and connect them to each other to offer further support. Our students deserve it, and we cannot drop the ball in this regard. This total transformation must be a priority if we expect to produce citizens who can and will succeed in a global economy.

Progress Report

My initial response to the progress report is that it is very promising, and, I think, more promising than the true reality of our classrooms. Teachers respond to the STaR Chart on their own. I wonder , however, how accurate those responses are when one takes into consideration whether or not teachers truly understand on what they are being assessed. Until reading this report, I’ve always considered myself very advanced in certain areas; however, I quickly realized that my knowledge is far less than I had originally identified. Yes, we have made tremendous progress; however, technology changes at such a fast rate that I do not believe our schools can keep up. Over 60% of teachers are at the developing tech stage in regard to teaching and learning (and, for the most part, the other three stages as well). After looking at data specific to my campus, however, I discovered that the majority of our teachers haven’t moved past this stage in a number of years. That’s a problem considering how much has changed in the world of technology over the course of the last year alone. I do like that online learning and distance learning are viable options for students, as the traditional school day no longer serves many of our students like it once did—especially students who are working full time, etc. Teachers who are trained in on-line instruction are much needed and, in my opinion, the wave of the future in regard to education. People are looking for convenience in this fast-paced and ever-changing world. Online learning is one answer. But more importantly, technology provides a more equitable education. Current technology proves promising in regard to quicker language acquisition (among many other examples), and of course we must strive to be better in this regard. But again, I believe our long-range goals are in jeopardy if more training and better resources are not in place like they should be. We can’t function in an ideal setting, as our setting in education is often the very antithesis of that. Are we making progress, yes. But we’re making progress at slow rate in comparison to how rapidly things change in the “outside world.” Reaching our goal involves regular access to equipment and resources, but it also involves moving teachers toward a digitally native status. At the rate we’re making progress, that is going to be a tremendous challenge.

Texas long-range plan for technology

The Texas long-range plan for technology states that "educators must meet high standards and and be well prepared to teach in the classrooms of Texas." While I believe that our educators can and do meet high standards, I do not believe, in regard to technology (both our knowledge of it and the appropriate resources) that we are well prepared. In regard to educator preparation and development, my campus has not advanced past the developing tech stage for more than the last three years, and the large majority of teachers state-wide identify at the developing tech stage as well--and have for a number of years. As budget cuts loom, technology is being hit hard, as all of our technology facilitators' jobs have been cut. These were the people responsible for opening up our worlds and introducing us to possibilities of which we would not otherwise be aware. Nationally, many schools suffer the same realization in that many teachers are digital immigrants trying desperately to reach students who are digital natives. Our schools do not mirror the outside world, the global world, and, in effect, we are not equipping our students with the necessary skills to "survive and thrive" in this global, interactive world. In order for educators to be well prepared, we need training, regular and easy access to resources, and time. These are areas where we are lacking, and lacking at an alarmingly low rate. Unless we take a hard look at our educational system and all that we require, we cannot and will not meet these long-range goals.

· Goals and objectives/outcomes of the research investigation
1. Understand how assessment design increases academic rigor in order to better prepare students for post-secondary success and challenging careers.
2. Understand assessment design and what kinds of assessments increase academic rigor.
3. Determine the level of rigor in both on-level and advanced classes via assessments and various sources of data.

· Activities designed to achieve the objectives.
1. Principal recruits committee members who participated in previous year’s book study of Rigor Is Not a Four Letter Word. Committee developed.
2. Committee meets to discuss plan of action.
3. Staff surveys distributed (website). Ask questions in regard to rigor, perceptions of current level of rigor on campus, and obstacles to ensuring and maintaining a rigorous environment.
4. Student surveys distributed (website). Ask questions in regard to rigor, current level of rigor in their classes, whether or not they welcome a challenging classroom environment, any obstacles to enrolling in rigorous classes, and level of motivation.
5. Disaggregate data: advanced classes enrollment and completion; AP test scores; percentage of students taking AP tests; standardized test scores; college enrollment; percentage of VRHS students who complete freshmen year of college; percentage of students enrolled in AP classes; PSAT/SAT results.
6. Each collaborative team studies two common assessments during common planning periods. Collaborative teams answer questions about assessments: goals, objectives, and student mastery of skills. Dean of Instruction selects answers of a collaborative team from each core subject area and summarizes findings.
7. Book study committee made up of head principal, one AP, Dean of Instruction and a team leader from each of the core subject areas and one extra-curricular subject area: Rigor Is Not a Four Letter Word. Members meet to discuss book.
8. Dean of Instruction presents findings from step 4 to team leaders who are part of the book study group. Discuss findings.
9. Team leaders meet with collaborative teams. Four collaborative teams are the sample size. These collaborative teams agree to design three assessments that align with the findings in the book.
10. The principal meets with each of the collaborative teams three times a six weeks to discuss progress of implementing research findings. These meetings are meant to offer support to the sample size and address any problems along the way.
11. The principal visits the classroom of one member of each of the four collaborative teams at least three times a six weeks.
12. Collaborative teams give assessments. Analyze assessment data.
13. Original book study group meets to discuss assessment data—how they increased rigor in the classroom, student success stories, research findings, etc. Committee also looks at TAKS data, AP test data, PSAT/SAT results, attendance records, assessment grades, Committee then determines to discuss findings with staff during staff development the following year. The committee carves out a block of time to discuss findings with the staff and to inform staff members of professional development opportunities that address assessments and rigor—both summer and beginning of the year sessions. Staff is invited to participate in these sessions and also invited to read the main research source—Rigor Is Not a Four Letter Word.
· Resources and research tools needed for data gathering
1. Standardized test scores of the last four years.
2. AP enrollment and completion rates of the last four years.
3. AP test scores of the last four years.
4. Both student and teacher rigor survey results.
5. Current assessment analysis
6. Rigor Is Not a Four Letter Word
7. Statistical evidence that shows how non-rigorous environments are affecting student absence, completing, and enrollment rates across the country.
8. VRHS drop-out data.
9. VRHS absence data.
10. VRHS college enrollment data.
**All of the above can be accessed from district website, school registrar, Dean of Instruction, and a computer with internet access. The book used in the book study will be bought by principal via the admin fund and distributed to each team leader.
· Draft timeline for completion or implementation of activities
The entire action research process will take place over one school year. The principal will recruit members during beginning of the year staff development. Committee will be formed by the end of this week. Data analyses and plan of action will be complete by third week of school. Committee members will meet at the end of every six weeks to design assessments for the following six weeks. Assessments will be given by collaborative team members throughout the second, third, fourth, and fifth six weeks, and the first three weeks of the last six weeks (allot time at end of the year to bring research project to a close. All data—assessment results, absence rates, completion rates, AP test data, TAKS data, college enrollment data—and a plan of action as a result of research will be complete by the last required teacher work day of the year.
· Persons responsible for implementation of the action research plan
All committee members (principal, AP, lead counselor, DOI, and five collaborative team leaders) and the collaborative teams will be responsible for implementation of action research plan. As my district is big on collaboration and gives us many opportunities to collaborate, participants in the research project will have the opportunity to meet as collaborative teams every week to discuss assessments.
· Process for monitoring the achievement of goals and objectives
The process for monitoring achievement includes data analysis the week after each assessment is given, weekly collaborative team meetings to discuss data, bi-monthly meeting of committee members to discuss their team’s assessment data, monitoring absence rates throughout the year, analyzing standardized test data, AP test data, college enrollment data, and discussions throughout the process.
· Assessment instrument(s) to evaluate the effectiveness of the action research study
Assessment design; results of assessments, end-of-year student rigor surveys (those students who were subjects of action research study), completion rates of students, grade averages of students, absence rates, various testing results, PSAT/SAT results, college enrollment rates (specifically of four-year universities) and data retrieved at the end of the next school year—how many of those students who enrolled in college completed their freshman year.