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