Technology+Facilitator+Standard+IV+Reflection


 * Reflection on Technology Facilitator Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation **

Technology Facilitator/Technology Leader Standard IV highlights the critical role that instructional technologists must assume in the area of assessment and evaluation (Williamson and Redish, 2009). As the “tech person” on my campus, I was tagged to attend at Trainer of Trainer session on a new assessment tool called “Istation.” Like too many initiatives in my district, there was no background information, just the email that I was to attend. At the training, I found that it was a computer adaptive assessment tool, designed to help teachers isolate specific areas of need for each student (Mathes, 2011).

The program seemed to have merit, and I learned that it was to be administered to ninth graders who had not passed Reading TAKS. Once I returned to my school, I was given the task of organizing the assessment with the teacher. The software was installed, the assessment was given, and the results reviewed. And that’s where it ended.

To be fair, there were flaws in the plan: Our school had only four students who needed the assessment, but it was determined that it might be embarrassing to single out those students, so it was given to the whole class. Of the targeted students, two passed the assessment with scores that automatically exited them from the program; and it was decided that the teacher would make appropriate accommodations to address the needs of the other two. In that respect, I suppose the assessment served its purpose.

A more relevant assessment tool for our school has been the recent purchase of more student response systems. Thanks to a former Lamar Educational Technology intern, several teachers have been trained in their use and regularly use them. We are adding more systems, and those teachers will be providing support and training to their peers.

Both Istation and student response systems are examples of assessment tools that provide immediate feedback. The difference between the two in regards to their potential is that Istation thrown on us with little explanation or training. Student response systems were sought out by teachers who already have a plan for their implementation. Teacher training, like student training should be authentic and meaningful. Lisa Stamp (2004) reported that shen students chose their topic  they worked much harder and longer than they might have if the topics had been assigned to them. In the same way, the teachers who chose to learn about student response systems will be more successful with the implementationof their chosen assessmetn tool.

Resources:

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE’s technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Mathes, P. (2011). Technical report : Istation’s indicators of progress, advanced reading. Retrieved from http://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf

Stamp, L. (Ocbtober 2004). The power of authentic learning. //Classroom Leadership//, 8(2). Retrieved from []