Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation

I was interested to read Williamson and Redish's finding that most current assessment efforts focus on creating stand-alone technology assessments that merely assess knowledge domains instead of embeding a technology literacy component into content testing (2009).

Prior to beginning this degree program, I hadn't heard much about un-funded mandates. No Child Left Behind requires schools to report their progress and meet certain Adequate Yearly Progress markers. Schools that do not "meet AYP" face sanctions that could include school administration being replaced or school restructuring (Sanctions, 2010). The problem with NCLB and its mandates is that the federal government has made these mandates without also properly allotting funding for states and school districts that may not have the financial resources for developing and purchasing technology, much less technology literacy assessments (Williamson, 2009).

I haven't yet developed a field-based activity to satisfy my implementation of TF IV. However when I do, I will ensure that I assess the students knowledge of technology applications TEKS, as well as content-area TEKS (Assessment Tools, 2001).

In the future, I plan to engage in action research to assess students' technology proficiency (Fichman, 2009). Benefits of action research include focusing on improving student achievement, improving teacher performance and instruction, becoming more efficient at conducting inquiry, and school personnel having ownership of the results.

I found the assignment from week 2 of EDLD 5301 particularly applicable to this reflection. After watching the videos from Dr. Kirk Lewis and Johnny Briseno, I thought Briseno was particularly prolific in saying that at his school they don’t make decisions without looking at the data first. He did note that they do take qualitative data into account, but the numerical data helps him and his staff maintain “all kinds of reports” that analyze where students are successful versus where students are struggling.

The topic that Lewis mentioned that I found particularly interesting was Expectation Graduation. It was also interesting that Lewis looked to his teachers and administrators to be able to read research from other sources outside the district, be able to glean what parts were relevant to Pasadena’s teachers and “see what they’ve done”, then ultimately be able to compare that data with their own to find what would “fit” in their particular environment. Lewis’ advice that teachers, or researchers, need to do what is practical for them hits the nail on the head. Lewis drove home his point by saying that researchers need to look into practical things that they need to know to apply directly to student learning.

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.

Sanctions for Not Making AYP (Apr 7, 2010). Sanctions for Not Making AYP: Wisconsin Department of Public Education. www.dpi.state.wi.us/esea/doc/sanctions-schools.doc

Assessment Tools (2001). The Technology Applications Center for Educator Improvement: University of North Texas. http://www.tcet.unt.edu/START/assess/tools.htm

Fichman, Nancy Dana (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action
Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Briseno, Johnny and Lewis, Kirk, Ph.D. (2009) Action Research Interviews: EDLD 5301 - Lamar University. [multimedia]