Assessing Technology Proficiency 1

Assessing Technology Proficiency: A Reaction Paper

Marifrances Mackey Education 6332 March 4, 2003 Assessing Technology Proficiency 2

Assessing Technology Proficiency

“With the incredible explosion of the Internet affecting so many aspects of society, harnessing the network’s power in meaningful ways will increasingly pose challenges for educators” (Deal, 1998). Many students and educators have developed sophisticated computer literacy because of the wide use of the Internet. This new found proficiency varies from individual to individual in profound levels which necessitates evaluating students and teachers in order to plan and deliver training to equalize knowledge so that the powerful tool of technology many be integrated into education. Both students and teachers “have become vitally aware of the significance of educations technology and expect to apply it in their classrooms” (Deal).

Even non-users are cognizant of the importance of the use of the Internet and recognize that competence in the use of technology is essential in the classrooms of today.

If a common level of proficiency is desirable among students and teachers, how can these skill levels be measured? Many evaluation tools are available in different forms and measurement levels. Surveys such as

Profiler measure an individual’s proficiency by use of a survey. Surveys exist for students, educators, and also for non-educators wanting to gain Assessing Technology Proficiency 3 insight into their level of competence. One survey for students assessed the user’s competence in the integration of technology into the curriculum. Each statement ranks the understanding as “not at all, minimal, comfortable, or proficient” (Profiler, Pre- and Post-Course) on questions about technology tools, productivity tools, and telecommunication tools used to enhance learning. Questions are also included concerning basic skills with spreadsheets, email, internet use, electronic presentations, saving files, and other necessary application (Profiler, Basic). After answering the survey, the

Profiler creates an effective graph which displays the level of proficiency based on the survey.

Another survey found on the Profiler assesses the proficiency of teachers. This survey has the educator rank proficiency by selecting “none, little, moderate, or high” (Profiler,Faculty) to indicate the level of knowledge for such tools as a digital camera, scanner, LCD projector, and video conferencing. Also on the list are the use of word processing, a database, a spreadsheet, and website development. A basic skills checklist that would be appropriate for anyone to take can uses the choices of “unable, adequate, familiar, fluent” about solving common printing problems, installing software, using features of word processing and other common applications. Both of the surveys also are used to create a graph to report Assessing Technology Proficiency 4 competency. These results seem rather informal and to be used only as a general evaluation of proficiency.

The measure of educator proficiency that is both thorough and accurate is one created by the Orange County Department of Education. It is a performance-based assessment with very specific guidelines. This measure requires a portfolio of products that demonstrates the mastery of email and the Internet, word processing and publishing, presentations, spreadsheets, and databases. The teacher also must design a lesson that integrates technology into the curriculum. If proficiency is to be measured accurately, this instrument produces a result that is easily evaluated.

Two large school districts, one in Texas and one in Arizona, are in the process of raising the proficiency of their teachers by drastically different methods. The Northwest Independent School District in Fort Worth, Texas, has drafted a plan that would freeze teachers’ salaries until they could demonstrate technology competence. Within five years a teacher would be required to “complete three levels of technology proficiency, eventually learning advanced skills such as web-page building” (Guerard, 2001). A teacher would no longer receive annual salary increases without demonstrating mastery. Critics of the plan say that “the piece tying it back to the curriculum was missing (Guerard, September 2001). Of the twelve Assessing Technology Proficiency 5 indicators in the first three levels, none mention a direct use of the skill in the classroom instruction other than for record keeping. Only level four includes a plan for the integration of technology into a subject area. The

American Federation of Teachers favors rewards over penalties and argues that “pretty soon it will be a moot point” (Guerard, September 2001) as young teachers coming into the profession will be technologically proficient.

The Arizona plan uses an online assessment to help individual teachers formulate a professional development plan for improving proficiency. The results of the assessment are confidential with administrators receiving reports by school, district, or county in order to detect gaps in the understanding. The tool does consist of objective-type questions. But this is only for recommending a plan for the teacher. The teacher then attends classes to improve their skills. At the present time, participation is voluntary (Guerard, August 2001).

I found the many types of assessing proficiency confusing and frustrating. Some seem too vague to properly evaluate competence. The performance- based assessments seem to be the most accurate and useful. If

I were in charge of technology training, the Profiler survey would be a first step in creating interest and enthusiasm for professional development among teachers and classroom skills for students. Then a portfolio that exhibits Assessing Technology Proficiency 6 actual products of specific skills could be used to evaluate and inform instruction and training. At all times the user can reassess and monitor their progress and growth. Assessing Technology Proficiency 7

References

Deal, Nancy (1998). Getting teacher educators caught in the Web. T.H.E.

Journal Online: Technological Horizons in Education, February

2003. Retreived February 25, 2003 from

http://www.scre.ac.uk/is/webjournals.html.

Grerard, Elizabeth B. (2001). Web-based tool measures teachers’ tech

proficiency. ESchool News online, February 21, 2003. Retreived

February 25, 2003 from http://www.eschoolnews.com.

Grerard, Elizabeth B. (2001). Texas district links pay raises to tech

proficiency. ESchool News online, February 21, 2003. Retreived

February 25, 2003 from http://www.eschoolnews.com.

Profiler. n.d. Survey: basic skills checklist. Retreived February 25, 2003

from http://profiler.pt3.org

Profiler. n.d. Survey: Faculty/Teacher Technology Proficiency of

Technology Equipment and Applications.. Retreived February 25,

2003 from http://profiler.pt3.org

Profiler. n.d. Survey: Pre-and Post-Course Assessment.. Retreived February

25, 2003 from http://profiler.pt3.org. Assessing Technology Proficiency 8

Technology Proficiency Certification Guidelines (2002). California

Technology Assistance Project. Orange County Department of

Education. Retreived February 25, 2003 from http://google.com. Assessing Technology Proficiency 9

Appendix