TF+TL+Standard+VII+Reflection



Standard VII Reflection  A strong leader in educational technology will be able to not only recognize the tools that will help advance student learning and professional productivity, they also need to be cognizant of the procedures and policies including budgeting in the technology environment, as determined by Standard VII, as Williamson and Redish (2009) explained. It is necessary to know the needs of the school to plan for the future. The limitations of budget put a strain on all departments within a district, and technology is no exception. Within the Concepts of Educational Technology course, we were able to explore this by learning about the needs of our district. It is necessary to understand your existing infrastructure if you plan to improve upon it. The STaR Chart analysis showed the strengths and weaknesses of the campus and pointed to how best to uphold this standard in the decisions to improve the lowest performing areas while maintaining proficiency in the others.  Niederhause, Lindsom & Strobel (2007) discussed the immersion of technology in schools, citing that in the 1980s there was a 168-1 student to computer ratio and no account of internet access at all. In contrast, 99% of schools now have internet access with a 4.8-1 student to computer ratio. With this staggering advancement in the integration of technology into education, it is vital that the money spent is used to the students’ benefit as the primary concern. This is under consideration as technology leaders must determine how to best make use of the budget provided to best implement technology into classroom instruction, which are addressed in the first two performance indicators of this standard (Williamson & Redish, 2009).  I had always been familiar with the struggles necessary in technology decisions. Having worked as the operations manager for a chain of theatres, I had to contemplate and calculate if it was fiscally responsible to upgrade our projectors from traditional 35mm to the newer digital projectors. The cost-benefit analysis that takes place in educational technology leadership is similar. The options must be held against complicated criteria, taking into account classroom instruction, improvement of school facilities, professional development and implementation into instruction.  Within my field-based internship project, I was able to watch this process first-hand. The development of the improved district web site allowed for observation of the second performance indicator, as the purchase of the new technology has improved our presence on the web as well as provided a multitude of Web 2.0 tools which are implemented into classroom instruction, as indicator one states. By talking to leaders in technology within the district, I have been able to learn how these decisions were approached. In addition to that, I was able to incorporate this standard by working with fellow educators in the implementation of this advanced technology. I have worked one-on-one with teachers, assisting them in setting up their web sites and integrating the blogs and wikis into their lesson plans. I have shown them how to utilize the website for mass data storage, including their assignments. It has been enlightening to see the multitude of ways this standard is interwoven into many of the activities completed within the program. Niederhause, D.S., Lindsom, D.L. & Strobel, J. (2007) Evidence of the NET*S in K-12 classrooms: Implications for teacher education. //Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4)//, 483-512. 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.