Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Blog Posting #3
The draft of the National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology is a broad plan to help states, districts, and even teachers look ahead with vigor at the vision of teaching for the 21st century.
The plan begins by explaining what 21st century learning is. It is not the traditional one size fits all approach instead it is individualized, personalized, and differentiated to ensure success for all students. Students need to learn skills that will help them in life after graduation. Since many professionals use wikis, blogs, and the Internet to solve problems, as well as collaborate and communicate with other professionals, students need to be replicating these same things in school. The plan suggests that this is possible by the use of technology. The goals in the plan to create effective learning in the 21st century proposes that technology needs to be available to all students everywhere and at all times.
“Assessment” is the next piece of that the plan discusses. It suggests that assessments need to be improved, rather than assessing after students learn a new topic, assessments could be more factual if it could be done as learning is happening and throughout learning experiences. Technology can help assess complex competencies, and technology can be used to create assessments that accommodate disabilities (such as ELL learners) as well as strengths. Using the best assessment data can help drive continuous improvement in teaching and learning. One of the goals that the report suggests is that there is a need for a data to be collected together across the board-school data, state data, and national data.
The next section the plan reviews is focused more on teachers-“Improving Learning Through Connected Teaching”. The plan suggests that there should be a general place to obtain technology based content resources and online learning communities that create opportunities for teachers. This will promote teachers to become more effective and collaborative with others. The plan states there is a need to close the gap between teachers by using teachers that know and understand how to effectively teach using technology and have them share with others that are lacking the quality skills to teach technology. All institutions, the plan remarks, should work together.
The next topic discusses the challenges that the infrastructure creates. The plan implicates that there is a need for broadband to be everywhere, and students need access to their own device/computer at anytime. One goal is to have Open Educational Resources available to all which promotes pioneering, ground-breaking opportunities for all. All districts and even states need to think about infrastructure when planning for the future. The plan says that the federal government has a leadership role in building a national infrastructure for all learning.
The next segment in the plan discusses productivity and how learning can improve using technologies simultaneously with cutting and managing costs. The plan informs the reader that there is concern over where revenue will come from, but that educational stakeholders need to embrace continuous learning and improvement. One of the goals suggests managing costs can happen with the adoption of a common definition of productivity in education. Use the definition and standards to improve decision making at all levels of the education system. Another suggestion on how to increase productivity is to reorganize the traditional seat time students usually have and focus instead on demonstrating competencies in a variety of other ways.
The final piece of the plan focuses on the “Grand Challenges”. The first challenge is to develop and integrate a system that all students can use that is individualized and offered at any time anywhere. The second grand challenge is focused on creating cost effective assessments that are based off of 21st century learning. The third challenge is that there is a need to develop an approach to share all content with all students, across all states, districts, schools, and to use efficient data that can promote further learning. The last grand challenge is the have effective online learning at a low cost.
In my opinion, the plan has many ideas that excite me as a teacher. As I was reading the plan, I was imagining all my students having a computer in my third grade classroom and that is a thrill. At the same time, many of these goals are lofty, and without proper funding will not happen for a long time. For any of the goals in the plan to occur, there needs to be money. There needs to be money to teach teachers how to use the technology, because without buy in from them this goal will never happen. There needs to be money to purchase assessment data bases, online programs, and proper internet speed. There also needs to be money for upgrades to the technology and for any repairs that need to be made. The plan also discussed all students having equal access to technologies and resources, but with different districts receiving different amounts of money, the ones with the more money obviously will use it to purchase more technologies. I don’t know if there ever will be a completely even playing field, although using technology and the Internet has opened up many opportunities for disadvantaged students. I am looking forward to the future and to where this plan takes us as teachers and where it will lead our students.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
The plan begins by explaining what 21st century learning is. It is not the traditional one size fits all approach instead it is individualized, personalized, and differentiated to ensure success for all students. Students need to learn skills that will help them in life after graduation. Since many professionals use wikis, blogs, and the Internet to solve problems, as well as collaborate and communicate with other professionals, students need to be replicating these same things in school. The plan suggests that this is possible by the use of technology. The goals in the plan to create effective learning in the 21st century proposes that technology needs to be available to all students everywhere and at all times.
“Assessment” is the next piece of that the plan discusses. It suggests that assessments need to be improved, rather than assessing after students learn a new topic, assessments could be more factual if it could be done as learning is happening and throughout learning experiences. Technology can help assess complex competencies, and technology can be used to create assessments that accommodate disabilities (such as ELL learners) as well as strengths. Using the best assessment data can help drive continuous improvement in teaching and learning. One of the goals that the report suggests is that there is a need for a data to be collected together across the board-school data, state data, and national data.
The next section the plan reviews is focused more on teachers-“Improving Learning Through Connected Teaching”. The plan suggests that there should be a general place to obtain technology based content resources and online learning communities that create opportunities for teachers. This will promote teachers to become more effective and collaborative with others. The plan states there is a need to close the gap between teachers by using teachers that know and understand how to effectively teach using technology and have them share with others that are lacking the quality skills to teach technology. All institutions, the plan remarks, should work together.
The next topic discusses the challenges that the infrastructure creates. The plan implicates that there is a need for broadband to be everywhere, and students need access to their own device/computer at anytime. One goal is to have Open Educational Resources available to all which promotes pioneering, ground-breaking opportunities for all. All districts and even states need to think about infrastructure when planning for the future. The plan says that the federal government has a leadership role in building a national infrastructure for all learning.
The next segment in the plan discusses productivity and how learning can improve using technologies simultaneously with cutting and managing costs. The plan informs the reader that there is concern over where revenue will come from, but that educational stakeholders need to embrace continuous learning and improvement. One of the goals suggests managing costs can happen with the adoption of a common definition of productivity in education. Use the definition and standards to improve decision making at all levels of the education system. Another suggestion on how to increase productivity is to reorganize the traditional seat time students usually have and focus instead on demonstrating competencies in a variety of other ways.
The final piece of the plan focuses on the “Grand Challenges”. The first challenge is to develop and integrate a system that all students can use that is individualized and offered at any time anywhere. The second grand challenge is focused on creating cost effective assessments that are based off of 21st century learning. The third challenge is that there is a need to develop an approach to share all content with all students, across all states, districts, schools, and to use efficient data that can promote further learning. The last grand challenge is the have effective online learning at a low cost.
In my opinion, the plan has many ideas that excite me as a teacher. As I was reading the plan, I was imagining all my students having a computer in my third grade classroom and that is a thrill. At the same time, many of these goals are lofty, and without proper funding will not happen for a long time. For any of the goals in the plan to occur, there needs to be money. There needs to be money to teach teachers how to use the technology, because without buy in from them this goal will never happen. There needs to be money to purchase assessment data bases, online programs, and proper internet speed. There also needs to be money for upgrades to the technology and for any repairs that need to be made. The plan also discussed all students having equal access to technologies and resources, but with different districts receiving different amounts of money, the ones with the more money obviously will use it to purchase more technologies. I don’t know if there ever will be a completely even playing field, although using technology and the Internet has opened up many opportunities for disadvantaged students. I am looking forward to the future and to where this plan takes us as teachers and where it will lead our students.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
Blog Posting #2
There are several pieces to the Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology. The first piece of the report focuses on the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP). With the TIP, every student and teacher is given a computer with wireless capabilities. This way learning can take place out of the regular school day, and can be used to involve not only the teacher and student, but as well, parents and the community. Some of the objectives of the TIP include executing a plethora of software, online resources, and other technologies that encourage and improve student achievement. Another objective is to encourage parental involvement as well as community involvement, as students are preparing for their futures in the 21st century.
The report places schools at either a higher Immersion Technology school or at a lower Immersion Technology school. Here are some of the major findings of both. In the higher Immersion Technology schools had strong district and school leadership, and had beneficial campus support for this pilot. They additionally had high quality professional development, not just brief meetings during or after school. Schools that were high performing held individual teachers accountable. Teachers in these schools had a positive attitude and agreed that student laptops helped to improve student learning. Schools with that were labeled lower Immersion Technology schools initially felt the same as the higher Immersion Technology schools, but failed to keep up with them. Teachers at these schools had a higher rate of turnovers; they were opposed to change and used lap tops as more of a free time activity than immersion within the classroom learning. Another trend that led to lower Immersion Technology schools was the irregularities in leadership, where not all administrators were on the same page as each other.
The next piece of the Progress Report reviews TxVSN which is a network that provides online courses for students in the state of Texas. TxVSN began in the spring of 2008 based on research showing the positive effects of online learning. The report explains the background and timeline of the TxVSN. In order for the TxVSN to be an effective experience for students, much background work was done to ensure that the standards were set high. At the close of the progress report in August of 2008, there was a lack of data regarding the effectiveness of this program, this was mainly due to because the courses were not available until November 2008. Currently, the TxVSN offers online courses under the two labels of high school and dual credit to 308 districts in the state of Texas.
The third piece of the Progress Report reviews the progress of teaching and learning. This data comes from partially from results from the STaR chart. The schools in Texas are progressing according to this data. From 2006-2008 the information shows that only 4% of campuses are Early Tech (a 1% drop). Developing Tech also dropped from 74% in 2006-2007 to 70% in 2007-2008. Advanced Tech increased as well from 20% to 25% in 2007-2008. The Target Tech stayed the same at 1%. The report also discusses the vision for teaching and learning called “Vision 2020”. This vision is based on that in the future students will be able to access digital resources that will provide a higher level of thinking and engagement that will be offered 24-7. This will help teachers offer more individualized instruction. Parents will be allowed the opportunity to become more involved with their children’s education as well as continue learn in their own education. In order for schools to improve to Advanced Tech and Target Tech, library media specialists will work with teachers to ensure students will have the appropriate technology literacy skills. These skills include knowledge of Internet safety and development of research skills using online databases and the World Wide Web. Some of the recommendations found in this part of the Progress Report include: additional funding, online research resources, standards, and a clear role of school librarians. The STaR chart data for online learning found that most campuses were in the developing stage. There have been steps taken towards online learning including the Virtual School Pilot, and the Texas Virtual School Network.
The next section of the report describes the progress of Texas educators. According to the STaR chart, most campuses (75%) were in the Developing Tech range. This percentage did not change from 2006-2008. Fewer campuses (a drop of 3%), though were at the Early tech stages in 2007-2008 which made the total 5%. The Advanced Tech campuses in 2006-2007 were at 17%, and then increased to 20% in 2007-2008, while the Target Tech stayed the same at 1% over the span of two years. To take educators to the next tech level, the report discusses some new requirements that are in place to ensure that this will happen. The report suggests that for teachers there is still a need for training and continual updates on the most recent technologies. There are recent standards regarding technology from the State Board for Educator Certification that new teachers are expected to know (via the Generalist Certificate) and that teachers currently should try to acquire. There are other technology standards teachers can strive for including an overall certification called Technology Application EC-12. There is also the Technology Applications Teacher Network that allows teachers to access resources regarding technology, as well as professional development that is available online. There are two main grants that the report describes to ensure that teachers are knowledgeable about technology and can apply it in their classrooms. They are: The STAR Grant in Action and The Intel Teach Program.
The fifth piece of the report encompasses progress of leadership, administration and instructional support. The STaR chart shows that there is progress being made. There was a 1% drop down to 2% (2007-2008) in the Early Tech stage, and there was a drop from 55% to 49% in the Developing Tech stage. In the advanced tech stage leadership had increased from 39% to 45% in 2007-2008. The Target Tech stage increased 1% to a total of 4% in 2007-2008. This report suggests that strong leadership is key in the success to better improvement of technology in a day to day environment. Leaders need to be cognizant of the fact that as technology is changing it is important to use the latest technologies to improve student learning. It was stated in the article that Texas has led the way in the area of planning. Some of the ways that this has happened is by creating the Educational Technology advisory Committee, the use of the annual STaR Charts, the creation of the State Board of Education Long Range Plan for Technology, the and the requirement by the state for districts to create their own Texas ePlan. In order to have technology there has to be funding. There are different ways funding can come about. One is through e-Rate which has given over 2.25 billion annually to all of the United States. Texas receives around ten percent of this 2.25 billion. There is additionally a technology allotment that the Texas Legislature that began in 1992. Districts receive $30 per student per ADA.
The sixth part of the report is focused on the progress in infrastructure for technology. This infrastructure is not just based on equipment, such as computers but also the infrastructure regarding humans-the staff that is involved or works directly with the technology. Much of the funding comes from federal funding and local funds for maintenance and capacity. The STaR chart shows that there is progress in this area. Early Tech stage went down 1% in 2007-2008 to 1%. Developing Tech went down 4% to 35% in 2007-2008. Advanced Tech increased from 53% in 2006-2007 to 57% in 2007-2008. Target Tech also increased from 5% in 2006-2007 to 7% in 2007-2008. The report shows how the infrastructure is progressing to meet recommendations from not only the TEA, but from the service centers and districts.
To ensure students stay safe on the Internet the report explains how the Texas Legislature mandated that the TEA compile a list of resources through that pertained to Internet Safety. Many things are being done to save the state money including the ESC’s use of the Texas Education Telecommunications Network to help alleviate costs due to traveling to Austin for meeting that are required.
The final piece to the report reviews each of the twenty Education Service Centers around Texas. This report includes the demographics of the area, the counties that it covers, and a mission statement. It also includes each of the four pieces of the Long Range Plan (Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Leadership Administration and Instructional Support, and Infrastructure for Technology). In each of the four pieces it includes goals and what steps are currently taking place to ensure success.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/comm/leg_reports/2008/08pr_to_lrpt.pdf
The report places schools at either a higher Immersion Technology school or at a lower Immersion Technology school. Here are some of the major findings of both. In the higher Immersion Technology schools had strong district and school leadership, and had beneficial campus support for this pilot. They additionally had high quality professional development, not just brief meetings during or after school. Schools that were high performing held individual teachers accountable. Teachers in these schools had a positive attitude and agreed that student laptops helped to improve student learning. Schools with that were labeled lower Immersion Technology schools initially felt the same as the higher Immersion Technology schools, but failed to keep up with them. Teachers at these schools had a higher rate of turnovers; they were opposed to change and used lap tops as more of a free time activity than immersion within the classroom learning. Another trend that led to lower Immersion Technology schools was the irregularities in leadership, where not all administrators were on the same page as each other.
The next piece of the Progress Report reviews TxVSN which is a network that provides online courses for students in the state of Texas. TxVSN began in the spring of 2008 based on research showing the positive effects of online learning. The report explains the background and timeline of the TxVSN. In order for the TxVSN to be an effective experience for students, much background work was done to ensure that the standards were set high. At the close of the progress report in August of 2008, there was a lack of data regarding the effectiveness of this program, this was mainly due to because the courses were not available until November 2008. Currently, the TxVSN offers online courses under the two labels of high school and dual credit to 308 districts in the state of Texas.
The third piece of the Progress Report reviews the progress of teaching and learning. This data comes from partially from results from the STaR chart. The schools in Texas are progressing according to this data. From 2006-2008 the information shows that only 4% of campuses are Early Tech (a 1% drop). Developing Tech also dropped from 74% in 2006-2007 to 70% in 2007-2008. Advanced Tech increased as well from 20% to 25% in 2007-2008. The Target Tech stayed the same at 1%. The report also discusses the vision for teaching and learning called “Vision 2020”. This vision is based on that in the future students will be able to access digital resources that will provide a higher level of thinking and engagement that will be offered 24-7. This will help teachers offer more individualized instruction. Parents will be allowed the opportunity to become more involved with their children’s education as well as continue learn in their own education. In order for schools to improve to Advanced Tech and Target Tech, library media specialists will work with teachers to ensure students will have the appropriate technology literacy skills. These skills include knowledge of Internet safety and development of research skills using online databases and the World Wide Web. Some of the recommendations found in this part of the Progress Report include: additional funding, online research resources, standards, and a clear role of school librarians. The STaR chart data for online learning found that most campuses were in the developing stage. There have been steps taken towards online learning including the Virtual School Pilot, and the Texas Virtual School Network.
The next section of the report describes the progress of Texas educators. According to the STaR chart, most campuses (75%) were in the Developing Tech range. This percentage did not change from 2006-2008. Fewer campuses (a drop of 3%), though were at the Early tech stages in 2007-2008 which made the total 5%. The Advanced Tech campuses in 2006-2007 were at 17%, and then increased to 20% in 2007-2008, while the Target Tech stayed the same at 1% over the span of two years. To take educators to the next tech level, the report discusses some new requirements that are in place to ensure that this will happen. The report suggests that for teachers there is still a need for training and continual updates on the most recent technologies. There are recent standards regarding technology from the State Board for Educator Certification that new teachers are expected to know (via the Generalist Certificate) and that teachers currently should try to acquire. There are other technology standards teachers can strive for including an overall certification called Technology Application EC-12. There is also the Technology Applications Teacher Network that allows teachers to access resources regarding technology, as well as professional development that is available online. There are two main grants that the report describes to ensure that teachers are knowledgeable about technology and can apply it in their classrooms. They are: The STAR Grant in Action and The Intel Teach Program.
The fifth piece of the report encompasses progress of leadership, administration and instructional support. The STaR chart shows that there is progress being made. There was a 1% drop down to 2% (2007-2008) in the Early Tech stage, and there was a drop from 55% to 49% in the Developing Tech stage. In the advanced tech stage leadership had increased from 39% to 45% in 2007-2008. The Target Tech stage increased 1% to a total of 4% in 2007-2008. This report suggests that strong leadership is key in the success to better improvement of technology in a day to day environment. Leaders need to be cognizant of the fact that as technology is changing it is important to use the latest technologies to improve student learning. It was stated in the article that Texas has led the way in the area of planning. Some of the ways that this has happened is by creating the Educational Technology advisory Committee, the use of the annual STaR Charts, the creation of the State Board of Education Long Range Plan for Technology, the and the requirement by the state for districts to create their own Texas ePlan. In order to have technology there has to be funding. There are different ways funding can come about. One is through e-Rate which has given over 2.25 billion annually to all of the United States. Texas receives around ten percent of this 2.25 billion. There is additionally a technology allotment that the Texas Legislature that began in 1992. Districts receive $30 per student per ADA.
The sixth part of the report is focused on the progress in infrastructure for technology. This infrastructure is not just based on equipment, such as computers but also the infrastructure regarding humans-the staff that is involved or works directly with the technology. Much of the funding comes from federal funding and local funds for maintenance and capacity. The STaR chart shows that there is progress in this area. Early Tech stage went down 1% in 2007-2008 to 1%. Developing Tech went down 4% to 35% in 2007-2008. Advanced Tech increased from 53% in 2006-2007 to 57% in 2007-2008. Target Tech also increased from 5% in 2006-2007 to 7% in 2007-2008. The report shows how the infrastructure is progressing to meet recommendations from not only the TEA, but from the service centers and districts.
To ensure students stay safe on the Internet the report explains how the Texas Legislature mandated that the TEA compile a list of resources through that pertained to Internet Safety. Many things are being done to save the state money including the ESC’s use of the Texas Education Telecommunications Network to help alleviate costs due to traveling to Austin for meeting that are required.
The final piece to the report reviews each of the twenty Education Service Centers around Texas. This report includes the demographics of the area, the counties that it covers, and a mission statement. It also includes each of the four pieces of the Long Range Plan (Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, Leadership Administration and Instructional Support, and Infrastructure for Technology). In each of the four pieces it includes goals and what steps are currently taking place to ensure success.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/comm/leg_reports/2008/08pr_to_lrpt.pdf
Blog Posting #1
I chose to look deeper into the "Teaching and Learning area of the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020". This area focuses on students being fully engaged in a variety of technology opportunities, no matter what district or part of the state the student is located in. Technology will bring the world to each student and classroom. This area encourages distance learning so that all have opportunities to be engaged in technology that will prepare them to be learners, and leaders of the 21st century. Technology will need to be accessible to all learners twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Since we are a diverse state, technology can help improve individualized instruction with the use of different programs and technologies. For this to happen, all teachers need to use technology effectively in their curriculum. Teachers will need to change from the traditional method of standing in front of students delivering the teaching to instead become a co-learner by working beside the students and facilitating and mentoring their work. I feel that this part of the area is the main challenge. This concept has not been accepted by all teachers and will take staff development, learning cadres, and observation of other classrooms (in person or online) that are seamlessly combining TEKS and curriculum with 21st century technology. Without teacher buy-in, this area will struggle to be on target. I believe that there are two ways that this will happen. The first is by seeing real teachers perform these expectations. The second way I feel that this will occur is by administrators. The Teaching and Learning area in my school (Bradfield Elementary School, Highland Park ISD) went from Developing Tech in 2006-2007, and in 2007-20098/2008-2009 it improved to Advanced Tech. I feel the reasons were because of an additional computer lab, and a classroom set of laptops available to each grade level. It has been easier to access the computers, so it is easier to use them. Our campus also went from having a solitary computer class one time a week, to an open lab concept where we are allowed the flexibility to use the computer labs whenever we need to for whatever concept. This has made some teachers happy in the school, but some as I mentioned earlier some teachers have not “bought in” to this change yet and are not ready to take on this technology role. As all new things do, there needs to be time for this change to sink in and to change all.
The overall trends in Texas on this area in 2006-2008 were as follows: there was a decrease of 1% in Early Tech, an increase of 4% in Developing Tech, a 5% increase in Advanced Tech, and no increase or decrease in Target Tech. Hopefully in the years to come, when technology and accessibility becomes more frequent we will all be on Target Tech.
Nationally, the data that was reviewed was from 2004-2005, (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) and it stated some shocking findings. It said that one-fourth of fourth grade students had teachers that used computers at least one time per week to create assignments. It mentioned that fewer students had teachers that integrated technology into mathematics. It also suggested that in 2004-2005 almost half of America’s students were sitting in classrooms where teachers do not have access to technology in any type or form of professional development or technology for general class use for instruction.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020:Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpt.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Trends Study State Strategies Report: Vol. 2. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol2-exec-sum.html
The overall trends in Texas on this area in 2006-2008 were as follows: there was a decrease of 1% in Early Tech, an increase of 4% in Developing Tech, a 5% increase in Advanced Tech, and no increase or decrease in Target Tech. Hopefully in the years to come, when technology and accessibility becomes more frequent we will all be on Target Tech.
Nationally, the data that was reviewed was from 2004-2005, (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) and it stated some shocking findings. It said that one-fourth of fourth grade students had teachers that used computers at least one time per week to create assignments. It mentioned that fewer students had teachers that integrated technology into mathematics. It also suggested that in 2004-2005 almost half of America’s students were sitting in classrooms where teachers do not have access to technology in any type or form of professional development or technology for general class use for instruction.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020:Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpt.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Trends Study State Strategies Report: Vol. 2. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol2-exec-sum.html
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Web Conference Week 2 Reflection
| Your Blog’s URL | http://sarah-e-arnold.blogspot.com |
| Time and Date of Web Conference | Thursday of Week 2 at 8:00 p.m. |
| A Copy of Your Blog Post | My experience with the web conferences overall was positive. Being new to this program, and overwhelmed at all of the new information and software, it is nice to actually see your professors and to hear them, instead of just reading the information that they have presented to you over the Internet. There is a sense of comfort when you can hear someone’s voice and see them. It was nice to see other peoples’ faces that are in the program. I feel like I have more of a personal connection with them, just by seeing their faces and hearing their voices! It was beneficial because many of the questions that were asked were informative, and they were questions I wouldn’t have thought to ask. Some of the downfalls of the web conference were that I was not sure if I was able to be heard or not. I am a little shy and it can sometimes be hard for me to speak up in a group of strangers. I don’t think I was able to be heard because no one responded to me. But, not everyone was responded to. My microphone does not have an on and off button, so I was hesitant to talk, and I didn’t want it to echo to everyone else. I wasn’t able to be seen (or heard) at last week’s webcast, and I was anxious all week if I was going to be able to be seen and heard. I asked to become a presenter, to see if I could be seen and heard, but with all of the other messages being mixed in, it was not done. I will have to look towards next week to see if I am using my webcam properly! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
