EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
WEEK FIVE: REFLEXIVE PAPER
JOHN HOHNSTREITER
• What outcomes had you envisioned for this course? Did you achieve those outcomes? Did the actual course outcomes align with those that you envisioned?
As I entered this course, I was prepared to study how instruction is demonstrated by the campus leadership in signs of example behavior, delivery, communication, and documentation. I was pleasantly surprised by the technological feel of the course because I am one of those guys that are resistant to change and technology is something that I needed to learn. I would be one of those who would try something new on the computer, but would resort back to my old, proven ways after the newness wore off. This class made, and I am glad of it, me get off of my perch and do something new. I believe my learning in this course is measurably higher than any of my other six courses in this program.
• To the extent that you achieved the outcomes, are they still relevant to the work that you do in your school? Why or why not?
It is pretty clear that the technological advances that have been made in the past 10 years are not something that will pass, rather something that everything is encompassing. And isn’t about time that the educational field get on board? As an administrator, I would expect to be able to look my learning community in the face and tell them that I want to prepare the students of this district for the times now, not preparing them for 1980. To do that preparation, I must lead by example by learning to effectively communicate electronically, to blog, work with webcasts, and use all types of audio philes in order to enhance education. In turn, my staff will see that I am bought in to the latest technology and its placement as a productive tool in curriculum.
• What outcomes did you not achieve? What prevented you from achieving them?
Even though we spent time blogging, as an administrator, I would have liked to have had more experience in blogging. I know that in my group, there was only two others who had posted blogs that I was able to read and comment on as well as I did not have any comments on my own blog. Then the assignment was over and on to the next. I was craving some feedback on what I did, how I did it, and how it could be better. I can see how setting up an educational blog site where students, teachers, and administrators can post information, opinions, reflections and get some positive feedback. As a teacher, I would like for students to post an assignment and get back some positive as well as constructive feedback that the author can use to finalize an assignment. As an administrator, I could post a proposal of IPOD usage in the school day and request feedback from teachers, parents, and students in order to get a pulse of the learning community where the school resides.
• Were you successful in carrying out the course assignments? If not, what prevented or discouraged you?
I learned so much from having the two weeks to work on the rather large assignment incorporating so much technology. I, along with many students, are visual learners and I would have been successful quicker if there was some type of a tutorial on how to set up and post a blog in the format of this class. But that is what we were to learn. There does not have to be any type of parameters and what I actually learned was the examination, experimentation, and discovery that was accomplished made my learning that much more effective. I can see that as an administrator, I would need my staff to discover some solutions rather me just giving them a template and expect clones. After that two week assignment, I felt satisfied and confident in the workings of blogging. I am still in need of learning webcasts and audio-philes in education. Our assignments talked and discussed that, but we did not have to work with them.
• What did you learn from this course…about yourself, your technology and leadership skills, and your attitudes?
I am a stubborn teacher who got complacent over his own successes and did not feel that technology, of all things, would make me a better, more efficient, teacher. I was so focused on my students passing the TAKS test by studying the objectives, student expectations, and test taking strategies that I missed the drive of education in teaching students to be prepared for the world they live in. I was so put off to technology simply because I did not know. I now know how my own students feel when I try to use a 1970 style of presentation. Why would I expect one way at school, but when I went home I would expect the latest technology at my fingertips. This course made me take a good look at myself and examine what I can do to improve. I learned that I had a lot to learn and once I did, I was able to have meaningful discussions with my students as well as some productive dialog with my colleagues about technology in the classroom.
• What is the educational value of blogs and blogging to the 21st century learner?
An administrator can reach so many more people to communicate with in their community; to collaborate with other educators by posting lessons, strategies, and policy ideas; and to receive constructive and productive feedback on proposals. As a teacher, blogging is a way for students to receive the much needed editorial comments, criticism, and critiques that are wanted before a final submittal. For example, a calculus student could post a solution to a problem and receive feedback from across the globe on any mistakes or solutions that were displayed before that student would submit their assignment. A teacher can post their lesson/notes/presentation in order to reach those away from school that day as well as those students who needs that extra (second) look. How can that be bad? As citizens in the community we live, we want to be double-checked before finalized. And these clients we spend time with everyday are already doing this. Our institution should not be a place that alienates their thinking process, rather enhance and expand.
• What are the concerns of blogs and blogging in education?
I would think that copyright, plagiarism, and blatant stealing or sabotaging is a fear that is out there as well as the threat of cyber violence through predatory actions and bullying. But that is where educators can do some basic teaching in these areas. I would guess the biggest fear keeping schools from unblocking as well as teachers from utilizing is access. By allowing blog sites opens up areas where students, not properly supervised or taught, can go into locations that are prohibited. But that fear is in each and every classroom when a math teacher pulls out compasses (someone will get poked), science teachers run a lab (someone will get hurt), and English teachers read in class (someone will go to sleep). We, as teachers, tell ourselves to not “let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch.” But isn’t that what we already do when we choose not to allow computer use in our classrooms. It is time for us all to step up and do our part incorporating computer usage in our lesson plans. Reach all of our students minds, not just the ones not plugged in.
• How can you use blogging to communicate with school stakeholders?
An administrator can post their proposal for policy change; for example, tardies, absenteeism, discipline, graduation requirements, school calendar, daily time schedule, and other items that warrant comments and critiques from the learning community. Teachers can post their syllabus, calendar, assignment expectations, fieldtrip release forms, schedule of semester/school year, and other important communications that are not always made available on the district’s webpage. Those web-pages are subject to the connectivity of the district technology department while blogging is existent on the World Wide Web. There is many times where parents talk to teachers about not being able help their children with a certain assignment because they have been out of school for a while and they are rusty. What if that teacher would blog their lesson/delivery or audio-cast their class experience. I know that time is of the essence, but if that allows for extra students to better their learning, then where is the risk. The learning community, stakeholders, would have a chance to have their voice heard and given that sense of value.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Technology Action Plan
LEDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Technology Action Plan
Thursday, December 10, 2009
John Hohnstreiter
TECHNOLOGY PLAN SUMMARY
This Technology Plan has been created to articulate a common vision for technology on the high school campus to identify strategies that will help Granbury High School use advanced technology to improve academic achievement, including technology literacy, of all students. The purpose of that plan was to establish technology as an integral part of the educational setting. The plan called for the proliferation of hardware and software to meet increasing demands for access to technology.
Granbury ISD has also developed a staff development and maintenance component to a complete technology plan and set in motion procedures to ensure its success. The use of technology has become an indispensable component in the classroom. This plan will build on prior technological achievements, enhance the role of technology in curriculum design and delivery, provide a higher level of staff development, and maintain to provide access to community entities throughout Hood County. The plan will build on the strengths of Granbury High School in a way that facilitates today’s students for tomorrow’s technology.
Granbury teachers and students will participate in a technology survey created by Survey Monkey in order to collect and analyze data. Additional opportunities for data collection from students will be by paper surveys in mathematics classes. Teachers will have opportunity to complete survey at the end of the prior school year to gather data of necessary training. The Texas STaR Chart report will also provide much needed information.
TECHNOLOGY ACTION PLAN
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
NAME POSITION RESPONSIBILITY
Ron Mayfield Superintendent of Schools Provide leadership in all areas of the school district.
Amy Wood Director of Technology Provide and manage all technology resources for all schools, departments, and personnel in the school district as a whole.
Diana Sudman Instructional Technology Coordinator Coordinate all technology resources and training with district educational and professional staff.
Administrators, Staff, Parents, Students, and Community Members Site Based Decision-Making Committee Gather information and make decisions on proposed school business by collaborating with all educational stakeholders.
Donna Jefferies Principal Provide leadership, schedule training, and make available opportunities for campus educational and professional staff.
Staff and Administrators Technology Committee Gather information and make decisions on proposed technology business
Tammy Burns HS Librarian – Campus Technology Scheduler Coordinate and manage schedule for computer labs and technology tools for the campus.
The principal must make sure that communication between all of the above parties is open and constant by including them in the collaboration of technology issues that arise. The principal needs to be in connection with the technology director for budgeting issues and the instructional coordinator for training opportunities. The principal is an appointed member of the Site-Based Decision-Making Team and the Technology Committee. The principal will initiate all communication to the Director and Superintendant, if necessary.
ACTION PLAN
GOALS PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE EVALUATION
Provide technology training for educators in order to support technology implementation into daily lesson plans. Director of Technology, Instructional Technology Coordinator, and Principal Planned Staff Development Days, Individual Development Days, and/or Workshops STaR Chart Report
Staff Evaluations
Staff Surveys
Teachers will collaborate with colleagues throughout district, area, and state by using online blogging and/or podcasts. Director of Technology, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, and Teacher Immediate implementation after training STaR Chart
Technology Use Report
Teachers will incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans. Teachers Immediate implementation PDAS Report
STaR Chart Report
Lesson Plans
Students will have access to computer labs. Teachers, Librarian 1st Day of School Sign-In Logs
Lesson Plans
Students will master technology proficiency through the implementation and teaching of the Technology Applications of the TEKS. Principal, Teachers School year 09-10 TAKS Results,
AEIS Report,
Common Assessment Results
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
I. Goal: Provide technology training for educators in order to support technology implementation into daily lesson plans.
Strategy: teachers will attend technology training during summer workshops, summer conferences, and summer development days. These days will give teachers needed training in all aspects of Microsoft Office, especially Power-Point and Publisher.
Responsible Parties: Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, Instructional Specialists
Evaluation Plan: teachers will complete an evaluation following the training as well as monthly meetings to check for continued support and updates. The results from the Texas STaR chart will provide feedback when compared to the previous year.
II. Goal: Teachers will collaborate with colleagues throughout district, area, and state by using online blogging and/or podcasts.
Strategy: teachers, after getting training in blogging and/or podcasting, will participate in an online communication community in order to widen the scope of instruction. Teachers can blog lessons and reflections of lessons to receive comments and critiques.
Responsible Parties: Technology Director, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, and Teacher
Evaluation Plan: teachers will show participation in the online community by providing a link to their blog site and/or podcasts location. Teachers will also include this in their PDAS Summative Report.
III. Goal: Teachers will incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans.
Strategy: teachers will write their daily and weekly lesson plans with a detail of what area of technology, online or classroom tool, which they are using. Teachers, who have already received this training, will lead by example of what is expected as well as its connection to the TEKS.
Responsible Parties: Teachers
Evaluation Plan: submitted lesson plans and PDAS summary.
IV. Goal: Students will have access to computer labs
Strategy: the school will open its computer lab before and after school to allow students the opportunity to use the computers, especially if the student does not have that technology at home.
Responsible Parties: Principal and Librarian
Evaluation Plan: students will sign-in to the library to reserve a station as well as sign-in to the districts network. Those sign-in documents will show us the use and necessity.
V. Goal: Students will master technology proficiency through the implementation and teaching of the Technology Applications of the TEKS.
Strategy: students will show their mastery of the technology TEKS by their performance on the TAKS testing in the spring. The TAKS report will give data of the mastery of the technology applications.
Responsible Parties: Principal and Teachers
Evaluation Plan: teachers will submit lesson plans that will demonstrate implementation of technology into their teaching. Those plans will show the connection to the applications of the TEKS via technology. Specific lessons will be drawn up to address the particular weaknesses as defined by the previous TAKS report.
Technology Action Plan
Thursday, December 10, 2009
John Hohnstreiter
TECHNOLOGY PLAN SUMMARY
This Technology Plan has been created to articulate a common vision for technology on the high school campus to identify strategies that will help Granbury High School use advanced technology to improve academic achievement, including technology literacy, of all students. The purpose of that plan was to establish technology as an integral part of the educational setting. The plan called for the proliferation of hardware and software to meet increasing demands for access to technology.
Granbury ISD has also developed a staff development and maintenance component to a complete technology plan and set in motion procedures to ensure its success. The use of technology has become an indispensable component in the classroom. This plan will build on prior technological achievements, enhance the role of technology in curriculum design and delivery, provide a higher level of staff development, and maintain to provide access to community entities throughout Hood County. The plan will build on the strengths of Granbury High School in a way that facilitates today’s students for tomorrow’s technology.
Granbury teachers and students will participate in a technology survey created by Survey Monkey in order to collect and analyze data. Additional opportunities for data collection from students will be by paper surveys in mathematics classes. Teachers will have opportunity to complete survey at the end of the prior school year to gather data of necessary training. The Texas STaR Chart report will also provide much needed information.
TECHNOLOGY ACTION PLAN
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
NAME POSITION RESPONSIBILITY
Ron Mayfield Superintendent of Schools Provide leadership in all areas of the school district.
Amy Wood Director of Technology Provide and manage all technology resources for all schools, departments, and personnel in the school district as a whole.
Diana Sudman Instructional Technology Coordinator Coordinate all technology resources and training with district educational and professional staff.
Administrators, Staff, Parents, Students, and Community Members Site Based Decision-Making Committee Gather information and make decisions on proposed school business by collaborating with all educational stakeholders.
Donna Jefferies Principal Provide leadership, schedule training, and make available opportunities for campus educational and professional staff.
Staff and Administrators Technology Committee Gather information and make decisions on proposed technology business
Tammy Burns HS Librarian – Campus Technology Scheduler Coordinate and manage schedule for computer labs and technology tools for the campus.
The principal must make sure that communication between all of the above parties is open and constant by including them in the collaboration of technology issues that arise. The principal needs to be in connection with the technology director for budgeting issues and the instructional coordinator for training opportunities. The principal is an appointed member of the Site-Based Decision-Making Team and the Technology Committee. The principal will initiate all communication to the Director and Superintendant, if necessary.
ACTION PLAN
GOALS PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE EVALUATION
Provide technology training for educators in order to support technology implementation into daily lesson plans. Director of Technology, Instructional Technology Coordinator, and Principal Planned Staff Development Days, Individual Development Days, and/or Workshops STaR Chart Report
Staff Evaluations
Staff Surveys
Teachers will collaborate with colleagues throughout district, area, and state by using online blogging and/or podcasts. Director of Technology, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, and Teacher Immediate implementation after training STaR Chart
Technology Use Report
Teachers will incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans. Teachers Immediate implementation PDAS Report
STaR Chart Report
Lesson Plans
Students will have access to computer labs. Teachers, Librarian 1st Day of School Sign-In Logs
Lesson Plans
Students will master technology proficiency through the implementation and teaching of the Technology Applications of the TEKS. Principal, Teachers School year 09-10 TAKS Results,
AEIS Report,
Common Assessment Results
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
I. Goal: Provide technology training for educators in order to support technology implementation into daily lesson plans.
Strategy: teachers will attend technology training during summer workshops, summer conferences, and summer development days. These days will give teachers needed training in all aspects of Microsoft Office, especially Power-Point and Publisher.
Responsible Parties: Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, Instructional Specialists
Evaluation Plan: teachers will complete an evaluation following the training as well as monthly meetings to check for continued support and updates. The results from the Texas STaR chart will provide feedback when compared to the previous year.
II. Goal: Teachers will collaborate with colleagues throughout district, area, and state by using online blogging and/or podcasts.
Strategy: teachers, after getting training in blogging and/or podcasting, will participate in an online communication community in order to widen the scope of instruction. Teachers can blog lessons and reflections of lessons to receive comments and critiques.
Responsible Parties: Technology Director, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Principal, and Teacher
Evaluation Plan: teachers will show participation in the online community by providing a link to their blog site and/or podcasts location. Teachers will also include this in their PDAS Summative Report.
III. Goal: Teachers will incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans.
Strategy: teachers will write their daily and weekly lesson plans with a detail of what area of technology, online or classroom tool, which they are using. Teachers, who have already received this training, will lead by example of what is expected as well as its connection to the TEKS.
Responsible Parties: Teachers
Evaluation Plan: submitted lesson plans and PDAS summary.
IV. Goal: Students will have access to computer labs
Strategy: the school will open its computer lab before and after school to allow students the opportunity to use the computers, especially if the student does not have that technology at home.
Responsible Parties: Principal and Librarian
Evaluation Plan: students will sign-in to the library to reserve a station as well as sign-in to the districts network. Those sign-in documents will show us the use and necessity.
V. Goal: Students will master technology proficiency through the implementation and teaching of the Technology Applications of the TEKS.
Strategy: students will show their mastery of the technology TEKS by their performance on the TAKS testing in the spring. The TAKS report will give data of the mastery of the technology applications.
Responsible Parties: Principal and Teachers
Evaluation Plan: teachers will submit lesson plans that will demonstrate implementation of technology into their teaching. Those plans will show the connection to the applications of the TEKS via technology. Specific lessons will be drawn up to address the particular weaknesses as defined by the previous TAKS report.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Texas Star Chart
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Texas Star Chart
View more presentations from jhohnstreiter.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Long Range Plan for Technology
Educator Preparation and Development. The preparation must include preparing students for the world they live in which carries a heavy load of technology. Training and development must be made available for all. All stakeholders are to receive continuing training and local/state support to implement these technological proficencies into daily lesson plans. (The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
What does this mean? This means that educators need technology training on the latest and greatest hardware and software being made available. This training and support is as important as learning the grading system. Many times this is overlooked due to budget restraints puts a hold on updating technology as well as the ever-so-often excuse of "what's not broken, don't fix it." Students and their learning styles are changing every year just as the level of technology and we need to stay on top of it or it will stay on top of us. (The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
Our technology department is under tight budget restraints that don't allow for much in terms of upgrading and that combined with a large staff/student population, not much in terms of new technology or the important training are made available outside of our educational service center. The trends of our state is to differentiate teaching to encompass technology, but without the funding to back it, many schools are forced to remain status-quo. (The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
My recommendation to attack this problem is to utilize all resources that are available to our disposal and begin writing technology grants. With the state keeping our school district under a microscope (due to unacceptible rating in completion), it would suit us better if we can upgrade/train with resources from awarded grants. As an administrator, I would highly encourage my staff to go to as much training that is offered. Present incentives that would motivate teachers to attend at all times of the year, especially the summer break. If you are going to require teachers to use it, make sure they are trained and proficient.
The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020. (2006). Texas Education Agency.
Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpt.html.
What does this mean? This means that educators need technology training on the latest and greatest hardware and software being made available. This training and support is as important as learning the grading system. Many times this is overlooked due to budget restraints puts a hold on updating technology as well as the ever-so-often excuse of "what's not broken, don't fix it." Students and their learning styles are changing every year just as the level of technology and we need to stay on top of it or it will stay on top of us. (The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
Our technology department is under tight budget restraints that don't allow for much in terms of upgrading and that combined with a large staff/student population, not much in terms of new technology or the important training are made available outside of our educational service center. The trends of our state is to differentiate teaching to encompass technology, but without the funding to back it, many schools are forced to remain status-quo. (The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020, 2006)
My recommendation to attack this problem is to utilize all resources that are available to our disposal and begin writing technology grants. With the state keeping our school district under a microscope (due to unacceptible rating in completion), it would suit us better if we can upgrade/train with resources from awarded grants. As an administrator, I would highly encourage my staff to go to as much training that is offered. Present incentives that would motivate teachers to attend at all times of the year, especially the summer break. If you are going to require teachers to use it, make sure they are trained and proficient.
The Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020. (2006). Texas Education Agency.
Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpt.html.
Pre-K Technology Applications
The Pre-K TEKS start students off with what we as educators describe as the basics with computer technology and those TEKS are repeated to greater complexity throughout the education process. Grades 1 - 3 have TEKS that are also repeated in Grades 4 - 6, Grades 7 - 8, and Grades 9 - 12 in each technology application strand. That will create a common assessment for educators in the areas that are vital, hardware and software. The progression is well past turning on the computer, rather using search engines, data management, data processing, and th proper application of the use of hardware. (Technology Applications Student Standards for EC-12: Prekindergarten Guidelines and K-12 TEKS, 2005)
An example of a spiraling student skill is the K - 2nd grade student will demostrate appropriate use of hardware and software to use terminology and start and exit programs to create and save. In grades 3 - 5, the students will follow the previous skills as well as identify characters of input, use remote access equipment such as printers, and make necessary adjustments for compatibility. In grades 6 - 8, the above skills are included as well as comparing/contrasting various devices for processing and analyze the correct software to use as well as demonstrate an understanding of internet terminology. Finally, grades 9 - 12 demonstrate programming and analyzing code proficiency, operating systems, and decision-making skills all the while including the skills found in the prior grade grouping. (Technology Applications Student Standards for EC-12: Prekindergarten Guidelines and K-12 TEKS, 2005)
Technology Applications Student Standards for EC-12: Prekindergarten Guidelines and K-12 TEKS. (2005). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/ta/stustd.html.
An example of a spiraling student skill is the K - 2nd grade student will demostrate appropriate use of hardware and software to use terminology and start and exit programs to create and save. In grades 3 - 5, the students will follow the previous skills as well as identify characters of input, use remote access equipment such as printers, and make necessary adjustments for compatibility. In grades 6 - 8, the above skills are included as well as comparing/contrasting various devices for processing and analyze the correct software to use as well as demonstrate an understanding of internet terminology. Finally, grades 9 - 12 demonstrate programming and analyzing code proficiency, operating systems, and decision-making skills all the while including the skills found in the prior grade grouping. (Technology Applications Student Standards for EC-12: Prekindergarten Guidelines and K-12 TEKS, 2005)
Technology Applications Student Standards for EC-12: Prekindergarten Guidelines and K-12 TEKS. (2005). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/ta/stustd.html.
Review on 2 Tech Tests
The tests that I took told me just what I already knew. I have a pretty good base on how to use a computer and the basics that are necessary for an average (maybe above-average) teacher needs to know in order to be known as semi-competent with technology. The first exam (Technology Applications Inventory, TAI) showed me that I have a pretty good foundation and an average information acquistion skill. What I struggle with is solving problems and communication with technology. The second exam (SETDA Teacher Survey) gave me the same results that from the previous exam. I am fluent in the basics but am below average in the advanced skills.
As an educator of over 15 years, I find that the results are directly indication of the drive for technological development led by administration. Most of the required technology staff development sessions are focused on a new attendance/grading system or e-mail protocol. There have been time to time opportunities to attend a 40 minute session covering Word or the newest Windows operating systems (guts session). These are the weaknesses that our (my current) technology leadership have demostrated. As for myself as an administrator, I feel that I would want my teaching staff to be competent with the four areas of Word Processing (i.e. Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook). If I want my staff diversifying their lessons by incorporating technology into their plans, I would want to provide all the training possible to move the teacher from novice to advanced (at least past developing). I would want to give incentives (stipend, Comp time, planning days) for staff to attend summer trainings to become more fluent in the above mentioned technology.
I found the assessments interestingly difficult to answer (SETDA), but clear with their results (TAI). The results were predictable and I would imagine that to a non-technology teacher, the norm throughout Texas.
As an educator of over 15 years, I find that the results are directly indication of the drive for technological development led by administration. Most of the required technology staff development sessions are focused on a new attendance/grading system or e-mail protocol. There have been time to time opportunities to attend a 40 minute session covering Word or the newest Windows operating systems (guts session). These are the weaknesses that our (my current) technology leadership have demostrated. As for myself as an administrator, I feel that I would want my teaching staff to be competent with the four areas of Word Processing (i.e. Word, Excel, Power Point, Outlook). If I want my staff diversifying their lessons by incorporating technology into their plans, I would want to provide all the training possible to move the teacher from novice to advanced (at least past developing). I would want to give incentives (stipend, Comp time, planning days) for staff to attend summer trainings to become more fluent in the above mentioned technology.
I found the assessments interestingly difficult to answer (SETDA), but clear with their results (TAI). The results were predictable and I would imagine that to a non-technology teacher, the norm throughout Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)