Internship+Log+EDLD+5306


 * Appendix H: Course-based Embedded Hours Internship Log Dorothy Patel **


 * Lamar University – M.Ed. in Educational Technology Leadership**

Course-based Embedded Hours Internship Log
**// Directions: //** In submitting your Course-based Embedded Assignment Log for each Assignment in Appendix H of the Internship Handbook, you are required to reflect on the assignments by completing a reflection in your course wiki/e-portfolio that should contain a minimum of 300 words. These logs will be used to assist you in completing your EDLD 5388/5370 *Please note that course number changes in Fall 2010* Internship comprehensive exam final report. Students should use and cite their textbook references as well as two additional references when writing each reflection. The reflection must consist of statements regarding the knowledge you gained from the assignment and how the assignment helped you master the Technology Facilitator Standard(s) /Indicator(s).
 * Course Number: || Course Name:  || Course-based Embedded Hours  (see Appendix I)  ||
 * ** EDLD 5306 ** || ** Concepts of Educational Technology ** || ** 12 ** ||


 * Description of the Assignment/Performance Tasks  (see Appendix I)  || ** Course EDLD 5306 Concepts of Educational Technology: **
 * A. ** **B.** Analyze Texas STaR Chart data, create a presentation for faculty on results, post the presentation to blog site where you also write 250-word opinion piece on one of the four areas of Texas Long Range Plan for Technology. Include (1) Description of the area. (2) Progress in the area (include local, state, and national progress. (3) Trends in the area (include local, state, and national progress. (4) Your recommendations for improvement in the area.
 * C. ** Create a wiki reference document. ||
 * * The knowledge you gained from the assignment. (2 points)
 * The relation of new information to Technology Facilitator Standards and Performance Indicators (2 points).
 * The relation of information gained to personal experience. (2 points)
 * Discussion at a critical level, not just recitation of facts. Discussion at a critical level means discussing things such as your opinion of the reading or experience, why you hold that onion, what you see wrong with the reading or experience, how you see the reading or experience is consistent or inconsistent with what you have learned so far, implications for the future, (4 )
 * insights into the patterns of interactions of colleagues.(2 points)
 * group processes including: who had power, authority, or influence; who was participating and who was not, who was not included, how did you or another leader draw the silent participants out; was there confrontation, conflict, consensus, agreement, hurt feelings? (2 points)
 * notations addressing the affective or feeling tone evident, concerns you noticed. (2 points)
 * questions you have that you should research or about which you can seek expert advice from your campus-based supervisor or your professor. (2 points)
 * Issues that puzzle you. (2 points)

(Minimum of 250 Words) || When I began this course, I was not even aware that Texas had a Long Range Plan for Technology. And the Texas STaR Chart was just something we did every spring. I recall lots of grumbling among the staff every time it was introduced. Delving into the plan and analyzing the data helped me to greater understand the policies and changes that were happening in my district with regards to technology. I constantly found myself considering how well my district was aligned with the plan.

Reviewing the plan and analyzing the data was an important part of becoming familiar the standards. The information provided a framework for technology planning and implementation in my school and district.

The plan is ambitious; With the huge spending cuts in education, districts are struggling to continue to move forward with technology in the classroom. At the same time they are trying to expand the resources available, they are faced with upgrading those resources already in place.

According to Prensky (2001), “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task.” Texas’ plan long range plan is designed to create learning environments that capitalize on this gift.

The readings were very relevant to what I have been doing as the technology professional in my school. I have been working with my administrator to budget for technology upgrades and education for the coming year. In addition to planning for purchase, I must plan training for teachers as well as students. According to Mouza (2002-2003), both the quality and quantity of professional development plays a major role in the successful integration of technology.

In analyzing the technological resources currently in use at my school, I am struck by the varying degrees of restrictions in place on computers for student use. Some are so locked down that no printing is allowed; while others allow downloading even when signed on as a student. And teachers are frustrated with the inability to use YouTube as a valuable resource. Betsy Price (2005) addresses the struggle between the need for teachers to access the technology they need with the need for technology professionals to maintain control. Our teachers have varying degrees of technological knowledge and acumen. Additionally, the level of classroom structure plays an important part in how students treat the computers at school.

The district professionals are faced with finding a system of control that simultaneously allows for maximum teacher and student productivity, while preventing potentially dangerous downloads. A major component will have to be an AUP that is not signed the shoved aside; but rather is emphasized on a regular basis.

References

Mouza, Chrystalla. (2002-2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. //Journal of Research on Technology Education//, //35//(2), 272-289.

Prensky, Marc. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. //On the horizon: The strategic planning resource for education professionals, 9(5),// 1 -6.

Price, Betsy. (2005). Who’s in control of the technology-integrated school? // Principal Leadership; // 6(1), 51-56. ||