Anna Lardinois

Picciano, Anthony G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology.

          Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Chapter Three: “Technology, Learning and Equity Issues”

 Summary

This chapter addresses how the inclusion of technology in the classroom can impact different populations of learners.  It begins with the provocative question of whether technology can replace teachers.  The chapter then cites a study of 24 schools that implemented an ILS (Integrated Learning System) into the classroom.  While the study revealed high approval ratings for the teacherless education program, the study did not provide student performance data to measure the quality of learning.  The author then concludes that technology is best used when it is supplemental, rather than the primary source of education. 

When planning for technology in the classroom the author urges readers to carefully review the cost of a technology implementation in comparison to the education value the inclusion will provide.  Picciano acknowledges that many people who make technology decisions are often technology enthusiasts, he cautions readers to see technology as a tool to meet educational goals, rather than the end destination.

In reviewing student access to technology, the author identifies several groups of students who may have limited access to technology, but for whom technology would be a great benefit.  Elementary school children are the first group identified as having limited access to technology.  Picciano cites that middle and high school students have 33% more access to technology than their elementary school counterparts.  Studies indicate that elementary school children have the intellectual and physical capacity to successful use technology to enhance their education.  The author reminds those who wish to introduce technology in the elementary grades to choose the material carefully to ensure the technology used matches the developmental and reading level of the pupils.

The second of the groups identified in the chapter are those with special needs.  The author details instances where technology can be more effective with special needs students, particular those with physical limitations, than those without identified impairments. The author also notes the ever-increasing number of hard and software options being developed to help those with special needs.

The author then introduces the differences in access and technology use between the genders.  The author cites students that both support and refute male superiority in technology use.  While calling all studies cited either inconclusive or in need of further investigation, he does suggest that social factors may play a role in the skills and usage differences between the genders.  The author suggests that males are more exposed to technology and use technology differently than do females, which may be the reason there is a skill and interest difference between the genders.  Picciano urges school leaders to create policies and programs to help narrow the gender gap in technology.

How race and socioeconomic are another area that was investigated in relation to technology access.  Not surprisingly, income and not race, was the determining factor to technology access in the home.  In schools, the gap in access to technology in wealthy and poorer districts is narrowing.  With the exception of the poorest districts, which many argue are the districts that need access to technology the most, student access to technology is roughly 4 students to every 1 computer. The author encourages technology leaders to look at ways to provide technology access to students outside of class time, particularly in communicates where access to technology is more limited. 

In my opinion, this chapter offers little to debate about.  We know that technology enhances the learning experience, hence all learners should have access to technology.  The only part of the reading that caused me to pause was a Case Study.  I felt Mrs. Bodine was wrong to contact Dr. Lewis about her circumstances.  In my opinion, this is a case where the mother should have encouraged her daughter to pursue her interests, without the handholding of the school.  I feel Dr. Lewis' only problem in this scenario is entertainining this discussion for so long.  If he has simply told Mrs. Bodine that Caroline should join the club and he would be at the next meeting to welcome her, I think this could have been nipped in the bud.  I disagree with the author when he states policies should be in place to encourage gender access.  The genders have access to technology equally.  Now it is the responsibility of the users to take advantage of that access. 

Good summary - nice work - Louis

Week One Work Begins Here

Picciano, Anthony G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology. Upper Saddle River,

                New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Chapter One: “Introduction to Technology and Planning”

 Summary

This chapter establishes the layout of the book and the philosophical ideas the author holds and has based the information in the book upon.  In the text the teacher’s ultimate roll is to inspire and a key outcome of education is to create lifelong learners.

Picciano states that technology is only successful in education when technology is an integral part of how the school functions.  He identifies teacher support for and input on new technologies as key element of successful integration into the classroom.  The author states that technology is successful in the classroom when teachers know how to use the technology, believe the technology enhances learning and teachers can shape their curriculum to effectively integrate technology.  

Historically, Education has been slow to integrate technology into classroom practices because the technology available was designed for business and did not meet the needs of the field, was prohibitively expensive and the field did not have trained operators.  However, things are changing. As the cost of technology continues to decrease, companies have rushed in to fill the void for educational materials making both hardware and software more readily available.  Teacher education programs have begun to make technology education a requirement of their programs, helping to ensure more technology-literate teachers are in the classrooms. In today’s schools both administrative software, designed to support operational functions, and instructional software, designed for use by students and those who work directly with students, are easy to find in use.

The author sees the successful planning as a cornerstone in technology integration in schools.   The author sites failing to plan for the ongoing costs that  result from the use and upkeep of technology as a critical problem in successful implementations.  Beyond planning for the expense of the integration, planning for the actual implementation and staff training is vital for successful integration.  Additionally, it is necessary to identify the expected outcomes of the technology integration in order to determine the success of the technology implementation.

Lastly, the evaluation of the product and the process are essential for future success.  Without end-user support and input, technology implementations are often not successful.

Anna Lardinois

Picciano, Anthony G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology. Upper Saddle River,

                New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Chapter Two: “Basic Concepts of Planning”

 Summary

This chapter establishes basic understandings of planning and the school environment. The reader learns that planning has no definitive definition, however all definitions include language that describes the involvement of multiple individuals who think about and develop strategies that will prepare the organization for the future.  Additionally, it is noted there are a considerable number of planning methods to be used for a variety of different planning activities.

A common planning system used in Education is the General Social System Model, which acknowledges the social nature of the school environments, but is not the most efficient approach to planning.  Because the process is dependent on individuals, the Model loses effectiveness when those individuals lost focus on the larger goals in favor of individual goals and concerns.

Another common planning method is the Continuum of Economic/Rational and Social Process Models of Organizational Behavior.  This method works well in business but is difficult to implement in a school setting because of the challenges of equating learning with profit.   The origin of these organization methods is an economic planning theory devised in 1978.

Planning in Education requires comprehensiveness, collaboration, commitment and continuity.  Comprehensiveness is a focus on planning that tries to understand and define the circumstances as much as possible with an understanding that this can never fully be understood.  Collaboration requires participants to pool their “knowledge, expertise and experience” as well as helps to increase the understanding of the larger goals.  A focus on commitment acknowledges that the best plans will not be successful without a group of people to work hard to implement them. Finally, successful plan accepts that the planning process is a continuous process without a true end.

The Model for Planning for Technology is derived from the social process method and move from the environment down to the school district, with the school building being the core of the model. This model contains both formal and informal idea gathering and contains participants from inside and outside the school.  The typical model lasts from 3-7 years and is documented in writing.  The timeframe allows for wide participant inclusion as well as time to include and react to evaluations and feedback.

Evaluation is key to the planning process.  Evaluations should be reoccurring, collaboratively developed and based on milestones or timelines.  Participants should be prepared to receive feedback and evaluations that do not reflected desired results.

Finally, before beginning an planning an implementation process it is necessary to choose the planning model that best fits the intended integration and to start with a small implementation before moving to mass adoption of the change.

The Southeast Florida Library Information Network, Inc., (2000). SEFLIN technology needs assessment

questionnaire (2000). Retrieved September 16, 2007, from The Southeast Florida Library Information Network Web site: http://www.seflin.org/clp/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.TechnologyNeedsAssessmentQuestionnaire

I remember when working with Needs Assessments for a class in the program last summer we were torn between a thoroughly comprehensive survey and usability in the real world.  It is with those experiences in mind I looked for a Needs Assessment that I believed would be functional and effective.

In my school we have a definite need to assess the technology training that should occur.  Both teachers and students are given technology that is not used to its fullest potential because all involved parties to do know how to use it.  While many cite lack of time and resources as the reason not to host comprehensive training, I counter that we are losing time when we struggle with the technology and wasting money when we are not using the products as they were designed to be used.

In my search, I could not find anything that directly matched the needs and the environment of my school, however I did like many elements of this survey http://www.seflin.org/clp/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.TechnologyNeedsAssessmentQuestionnaire.  While some of the questions are hopelessly outdated (they ask questions about floppy disks) the structure is easy to follow and asks many detailed questions about job functions.  If redesigning this survey to meet the needs of my environment I would not only revise the questions asked, but may revisit the categories.  While I can see the value of the Experience Level categories of None, Little, Sufficient and Extensive, I believe they can be improved upon.  I would like to see a substitution that indicates how often this occurs- such as “Daily Practice,”  “Once a Week,” “Once a Semester” etc. to get a better idea of how often these skills are being used and how needed they are for the technology user to function effectively. 

Article Review

Keaster, R (2005). Distance education and the academic department: the change process Developing online

courses in a traditional academic department requires sensitive management of the change process. Educause Quarterly, 28, 3, Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/DistanceEducationand/39935?time=1189957289

In “Distance Education and the Academic Department: The Change Process,” the author, Ric Keaster, a department chair, highlights the events that occurred when he spearheaded change in his department.  He cited the reason the department was ripe for change as two-fold: the rules upon which they had been operating were changing and key staff were retiring.  The incoming requirements coupled with the leaving of “the old guard” allowed the author to make significant changes that might otherwise have been significantly more difficult to achieve.

Keaster cites as “The Sacred Six,”  or six step that, if followed, would dramatically increase an organization’s chance for a successful change outcome.  The six steps mentioned are :

• Create a context for change.
• Clarify a shared vision and goals
• Provide for planning and resources.
• Provide for training.
• Monitor progress.
• Provide continual assistance.

Throughout Keaster’s process the focus always remained focused on the people, rather than the change itself.  He continually sought ways to engage team members with each other and with the process. Keister presents the ideas that while the staff went through the change process it made them better online educators as they became more flexible and adaptable overall.

From the course reading and activities, and this article, it is clear that the key component of the change process is communication.  Without successful and frequent communication with team members it is difficult to get “buy in” from the participants.  Without that “buy in” the success of an implemented change remains in question. A primary connection I can make to this article is that being adaptable to change causes a person to be overall more flexible.  I agree with this belief and I also agree with Keaster’s assessment that flexible, adaptable educators make better online teachers. The population we are educating and the method in which they access this education is changing rapidly.  It seem obvious that the educator needs to be prepared to adapt to those circumstances.