Week 4 Assignments:
- Review of Staff Development Article
Bray, Barbara. " Staff Development Models." techLearning 01 July, 2001. 28 Sep 2007
http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/braysd.php.
Barbara Bray unveils several "Staff Development Models" that are being used around the country to encourage the use of technology in education. All of the initiatives Bray discusses in the article have some foothold in staff members becoming active participants in planning the technology staff development. For instance, one tech plan involves a building mentoring program that allows two teachers in the building to share a full time teaching position and to share a full time technology mentor position. This makes a technology mentor available full time while allowing teachers to feel less threatened by the "invasion" of technology in their classrooms. Additionally, these technology mentors work with the teachers skills while working with the students' skills. Teachers learn along with their students as the mentors run the class and monitor student progress. This provide a quality learning experience for both the teachers and the students, and it also allows students to see their teachers as active learners, something that encourages future learning for many students.
In a technology learning festival, Scott Smith turned staff development on its ear. Instead of training teachers as curriculum creators, he placed them in the role of a student and allowed them to experience a learning environment that was dynamic, interactive, and technology driven. The outcome: teachers who knew what values were present within this type of classroom, and some motivation to try it out on their own students.
Cheryl Vitali, a technology mentor in her district, let go of the reigns of technology staff development and began to let her constituents in the building help to lead the initiative. While the standard concerns were in place about control and forward progress, Vitali realized that teachers were willing to lead the flock instead of blindly following a leader. The outcome has been a building where technology integration into curricular work is successful and exciting for students.
What I see in this article, which is something that I truly want to work to start in my own school, is teachers taking control of what they may not be getting from their district. While technology staff development is a necessity (and teachers and administrators know it), there are just too many other objectives/initiatives in the way at some schools to allow for time/money to budget for training. Instead of allowing that to get them down, the people in this article decided to become active seekers in a solution. Ultimately, they found ways to get what they wanted from the professional development without having to jump through the hoops of unions, district policies, budget constraints, and the other hoopla that tends to get in the way of valuable educational practices. These hoops can cause us to simply spin our wheels and become frustrated, or we can find ways around them. This shows that the ways around them are possible, and based on the findings in this article, worthwhile.
I have already put my email in to several of these individuals to learn more about how they are doing what they do. Hopefully I will hear back from them in the near future.
Our technology plan is set for 2007-2010. At this point, the only information that can be analyzed is the actual plan. We have not had enough time to implement any of the items that were set forth in the plan.
If I were to provide an overall analysis of the technology plan, it seems to be well written in places that matter the most. However, if the devil is truly in the details, then the plan is doomed to failure. There was a great discussion/debate that centered around the creation of this technology plan. However, the failure to incorporate a person/group that was responsible for evaluating progress may be a fatal error. The "work" of this plan was wisely dispersed among many parties. However, there needs to be a person/group responsible for orchestrating the participation of all parties. While the district technology committee was intended to be the body to serve that role, the actual "power" of that committee within the grand scheme of the district is relatively weak. Therefore, it will be essential to get district admins to buy into the program and give technology committees some legitimacy by encouraging admins to join these committees.
I would give the overall plan a B. Great thoughts, great ideas, but failure to focus in on details may prove problematic.
* Introduction
Grade: D
The plan does include the district vision and mission statements. This is accurate with all of the communications provided to parents, staff, and students regarding where the district is headed and what the district deems important. Unfortunately, there is no information presented regarding the relevant research on the impact of information and instructional technology resources/services on student academic achievement. This seems to be the most important piece of the introduction. There is some information presented on William DuFour's 3 questions model, but this is in direct reference to the district's missions and visions statements. It has nothing to do with information and instructional technology research.
* Background
Grade: A
There is a clear set of background information presented. It includes student demographics, technology and media literacy statistics, community demographics, and process planning schedule (although the schedule does not reflect the planning meetings that went into creating the plan, but perhaps that is beyond the scope of the planning process schedule). This information is clear and accurate.
* Needs Assessment/Current Status
Grade: C
The previous plan goals are all present within the technology plan. The successes and shortcoming are all unveiled in the plan. However, the evaluation of those goals is not meaningful. For instance, the "Big 6" goal set forth in the previous plan is said to be in progress in all buildings, on some level, and that library media specialists are responsible for implementing Big 6 standards for research in those buildings. Yet, as a teacher in the high school, this was the first I had ever heard of Big 6 (my colleagues in the English dept. echoed my confusion as to how it was being implemented in our building). The goal of "The State of Wisconsin Information and Technology Literacy standards will be reviewed in relationship to the Fort Atkinson School District’s curriculum to facilitate complete coverage of the standards, K-12" was also not met. However, the explanation of why the goal wasn't met is more of an excuse than a reason. The plan suggests that the initiative was not "well accepted" by the administrators and teachers and that the district already had too many other initiatives on its plate and did not have time to fulfill this expectation. The reality, however, was that the committee was never formed and no meetings were ever held to move the initiative forward. An outright lie within the technology plan is absolutely unacceptable! An honest portrayal of the circumstance would be far more respectable than an attempt to cover up these shortcomings. The third goal was met, which is commendable, but it took much less initiative and collaboration to complete than the other goals.
The plan does address staff proficiency based on an informal survey given to teachers. This information is complete and helpful for future planning initiatives. The plan does talk about effective teaching and learning practices taking place within the district, but these initiatives are not focused on technology or media literacy. By incorporating curriculum mapping initiatives as a part of technology plan, it can be assumed that the mapping directly addresses technology and media literacy standards. This is not entirely the case. While this seems to be true at the elementary and middle schools, it has not taken place at the high school. The plan does not address this building as an underserved population and it does not suggest future plans for addressing these standards at the high school. Failure to mention the high school is probably directly related to the difficulty of promoting change at this level of education. However, this issue MUST be addressed within a technology plan, not entirely avoided.
The systems support, resources, and instructional resources are all present within the plan. The numbers are honest and clear. The plan should be commended for this accurate portrayal of what is available within the district. However, what is not clearly indicated is an honest analysis of how well these resources work or how available these resources are to all students and teachers. This seems to be a use of statistics that promotes a positive image while not revealing the full truth of the circumstances surrounding technology usage and availability.
* Goals and Objectives &
* Implementation Action Plan
Grade: A
This portion of the plan is very impressive and weaved together. The plan identifies research that supports each action plan, clearly identifies the responsible parties (and their individual responsibilities), provides adequate "goals" by which to measure success, and honestly discusses the budget limitations and needs. This, as it should be, is the most important part of the plan and is very well written and rather comprehensive. The biggest trouble: tackling all of the issues at once and clearly communicating all of the initiatives to all of the parties.
* Monitoring Progress and Evaluating Plan
Grade: F (Not Present)
There are specific objectives set that will be used to acknowledge when an objective is met. However, there is nothing in the context of the plan that suggests who will be evaluating if and when these objectives are met. Additionally, there is nothing included that suggests how the district will utilize this information for planning and who will be responsible for communicating that information to parents and other stakeholders in the district.
* Procedures and Policies
Grade: A
All of these items are present and seem to be thoughtfully addressed. It looks as if these items were completed at an earlier time and now a standard attachment to the Technology Plan (perhaps with minor revisions).
- Tool/Process to Evaluate Administrative Software
I searched around on the Internet for a bit and I attempted to locate a process for evaluating software (administrative or educational). There were a few ideas out there, but I really didn't come across anything that was a comprehensive process by which software could be suggested, evaluated, piloted, and purchased. There were certainly pieces of the process available, but I just didn't find anything that provided a whole process (I know, I know, it is out there somewhere, but I felt like I was not going to find the process that suited my district's purpose).
I know that one goal of our technology committees this year (if I can get our tech admin to move forward with setting up these committees) is to identify a process by which technology (specifically software) can be purchased without just haphazardly purchasing whatever anyone suggests. Therefore, I decided to create my own process based upon common sense and what I feel is most appropriate. I would appreciate any comments on the process. It seems like a long process (I mean, come on, it has 9 steps), but I just cannot decide how to condense it and still make sure the process is meaningful and effective. While the first few times through the process may need some tweaking, I do think that a consistent technology committee or administrator would be able to streamline this process while still making sure all of the essential steps are followed.
Of course, the biggest downfall will be time. This process is going to take some time to get through. However, when you consider the money that can be spent on a technology purchase, big or small, it suddenly becomes clear that these are not decisions that should be taken lightly (as a taxpayer, it makes me ill to see how readily schools spend money on ideas, products, and "training" that never has any follow through to it. While there may be a few eye rolls at the necessity to go through this entire process, even for a program that may only cost a "few" dollars, it seems like that is the least districts can do to make sure that they are getting a quality product. When we look at textbook adoption steps, they are easily comparable to the process provided here. Considering the change in technology today, we are foolish to believe that the purchase of software or any technology today is any different than that of textbook purchase. These items are now a part of our curriculum and they require considerable evaluation.
What I love about the process, though, is the "NEEDS" focus it is based upon. It is clear that technology should not drive curriculum. Most professionals can agree upon that. However, when we look at the "movements" in education today, many of the "movements" tend to drive curriculum (not just technology-related ones). Districts spend incredible amounts of money to "train" employees on differentiation, prescribed writing programs, grading systems/policies, and whatever other "newest trends" hit the educational journals that month. What is consistently overlooked, however, is the question of what the district NEEDS are. By encouraging staff, teachers, parents, and students to identify the needs that are not being met, and by searching for a product that may assist teachers/staff in meeting that need, it stands to reason that teachers, staff, students, and parents will be more likely to buy into the product that helps to meet that need. In this process, the "NEEDS" are constantly referred back to, and the product/s are compared against that need to discover if the product actually helps to meet the need identified. That, in my opinion, is a process that I would be excited to work with.
SO, here is the process, complete with the 10 steps and an explanation of each step. Again, any comments would be GREATLY appreciated as I will be taking this to our district technology committee as an idea of the process that we could utilize in our own technology selection process.
Process
1. Needs Identification Referral
2. Literature/Product Review
3. Product/Needs Comparison Analysis
4. Product Cost Analysis
5. Product Pilot
6. Pilot Analysis
7. Product Purchase Review
8. Professional Development/Implementation Planning
9. Product Implementation Review
Definition of Process Steps
Needs Identification Referral
Members of the learning community (students, staff, teachers, parents, and administrators) will complete a referral form that clearly identifies a need, practice, goal, and/or objective within the district that may be potentially supported by the use/implementation of technology. The purpose of this step is to identify a specific “need” that technology may be used to achieve/fulfill.
While those writing the referral may include a request for a specific software program, it is essential that the “needs” of the district are the driving force behind any technology initiatives/purchases. This step will identify a clear purpose for the use/purchase of technology within the district.
Literature/Product Review
A committee or appointed administrator will complete a comprehensive review of the technology available that could be utilized to meet the needs identified in the Needs Identification Referral step.
The researcher(s) will provide a document that relays the information that was discovered as a result of the literature/product review. This document should provide specific information about product names, developers, contact information, and a brief description of each product uncovered. It is also useful if the researcher(s) can provide a summary of any statistics/trials/research related to the products on the list.
Product/Needs Comparison Analysis
Using the documents generated in the previous step, a committee or appointed administrator will create a spreadsheet document comparing all of the products that were recommended to fulfill the need originally suggested. This research will be more specific than the previous step and will require contact with the various companies to inquire about the products of interest.
It is at this point that it would be advisable to allow vendors to share product information, provide product presentations, and to contact other districts utilizing the products being compared.
Product Cost Analysis
In addition to the Product/Needs Comparison Analysis, an appointed administrator will be responsible for completing a Cost Analysis for each product that is in consideration for purchase. The Cost Analysis must include (but is not limited to):
1) Product Purchase Cost (initial purchase)
2) Infrastructure Support Cost (initial upgrades needed to fully support functional use of the product when purchased)
3) Professional Development Training Cost (cost of providing initial training and ongoing training, but not including wages and benefits for district employees)
4) Program Continuation Costs (upgrade costs, license renewal costs, yearly annual fees, etc)
5) Infrastructure Continuation Cost (technology infrastructure needed to continually support the program)
6) Other Costs (costs that are specific to individual products)
Product Pilot
Using the Product/Needs Comparison Analysis and the Product Cost Analysis documents, a district committee or an appointed administrator will be responsible for choosing a product that best meets the needs identified in the Needs Identification Referral while still fitting within budget constraints, district objectives/initiatives, technology infrastructure availability, and best educational practices.
Once determined, the following steps will be taken:
1) Contact vendor to identify pilot program specifications (specific to each company)
2) Determine the student group(s) and teacher(s) to be included in the pilot (considering the needs identified as well as the teacher(s) willingness to adapt to a pilot)
*This will require conversation with the teacher(s) to determine interest.
3) Select dates for
a. Professional Development Training
b. Pilot start/end dates
4) Identify, create/acquire evaluation tools/practices for pilot evaluation
At this point the planning will be completed and the pilot will begin. An appointed administrator will need to monitor progress during the pilot, making certain that the evaluation tools/practices are completed/followed.
Pilot Analysis
A district committee or an appointed administrator will fully review the outcomes of the pilot. Using the evaluation tools/practices completed during the pilot, and incorporating conversations with students, staff, teachers, and parents involved with the pilot, the committee or administrator will evaluate the results. It is essential that the results of the pilot are matched up to the original needs identified in the Needs Identification Referral. It is also essential that the product and these results are shared with the teachers and staff members directly responsible for utilizing and implementing the software into their work day. Their reactions, concerns, and suggestions should also be included with the results.
A Pilot Analysis document will be created in which any findings uncovered within this stage are recorded. This will become an important and lasting document on which purchasing decisions will be made. This document should also be readily made available to the public (perhaps in an online version) if the Product Purchase Review team elects to purchase the product.
Product Purchase Review
The district committee or an appointed administrator will review the Pilot Analysis and make determinations based upon this analysis.
If it is determined that the product piloted has met the needs of the district, and if there are no other downfalls that make the product piloted a poor choice for the district, the district will move forward with the purchase, contacting responsible parties for purchasing, technology maintenance and upgrade, professional development, and any other necessary parties. The committee/administrator will also select an appropriate time for the Product Implementation Review, considering an appropriate timeline that will provide enough time to analyze how effectively the product has met the needs of the district.
If it is determined that the product piloted has not met the needs of the district, or if there are other downfalls of the product piloted that make purchasing a bad decision for the district, the committee or appointed administrator will move back to the Product Pilot stage with a different product (if another suitable product exists).
Professional Development/Implementation Planning
Once the software has been purchased, an appointed administrator will determine the period in which the software will be ideally implemented at each building. Professional development training will be scheduled and parties to be trained will be contacted. If ongoing support is required, plans for providing that ongoing support will be made before the professional development training takes place.
At each training session, expectations for the software use and the dates the software will be in full use will be clearly communicated to the staff members responsible for implementing the software in their work day. Staff members will also receive instruction on where to go for product support and for ongoing support of the implementation of the software.
Product Implementation Review
The district committee or an appointed administrator will conduct a comprehensive review of the overall effectiveness of the product purchased. The committee/administrator must first review the Needs Identification Referral to become familiarized with the purpose for the product purchase. The review can include, but is not limited to:
1) Assessment measurements
2) Interviews (students, staff, teachers, parents)
3) Review of Actual Cost vs. Product Cost Analysis
4) Review of Needs Identification Referral vs. Present Needs (Is this still a need? Is there another product within the district that meets this need?)
5) Review of Product Technology Infrastructure Requirements vs. Present State of Technology Infrastructure
6) Review of Actual Implementation Practices (Is it being used? Is it being used regularly? Is it being used appropriately?)
The committee or an appointed administrator will prepare a Product Implementation Review document. This will become an important and lasting document that will allow the committee/administrator to determine if the district wants to maintain or discontinue use of the software. This document should also be readily made available to the public (perhaps in an online version).
Week 3 Assignments:
- Article/resource review on Technology Integration
http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech152.shtml">Conner, Dixie (2002, 12, 4). Technology Planning:Closing the Communications Gap. Education World, Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech152.shtml
In Conner's article on closing the communications gap, she provides tips for technology leaders looking to engage teachers in technology planning, and some tips for teachers on why they should become more actively involved in technology planning. While the focus in specifically on technology integration, Conner provides ideas that may begin to bridge the gap between two groups of essential players needed to move technology forward.
Conner begins by identifying faults that both groups have had a hand in with not moving technology succesfully forward. Conner suggests that teachers, the individuals responsible for actually improving learning through the use of technology, have utilized a hands-off approach when it comes to technology planning. Often they close their eyes and ears to the planning, wondering what the necessity of all the planning really is. In doing so, they become more shut down from the advancement of technology, and suddenly become victims of change when the technology planning is finished and the technology moves forward, whether the teachers are prepared for it or not. The other group at fault is the technology leaders within a building. Neglecting to involve teachers in technology planning eventually leads to a battle of ideals/wills/wants/desires when the time comes to actually implement the technology. Teachers, having not been included, feel that they have not been "listened to" by those involved with the technology planning. Of course, this is a fundamental flaw in technology initiatives because the teachers are the gatekeepers to successful integration of technology in the classrooms. Similarly, technology leaders thwart their own progress in not including teachers because the plans they make are not as all-inclusive as they should be in considering all of the key players ideas.
Some key tips for technology leaders to overcome this potential obstacle to technology implementation are listed in the article. Conner suggests that technology leaders must solicit teachers' participation in technology planning committees. This makes them active planners in the tech plan and improves buy-in from teachers. Their is also a suggestion to utilize technology proficient teachers as technology mentors for teachers (a train the trainers model of professional development). In addition to this, districts need to provide incentives to teachers to take on such leadership positions and to attend technology training. While doing this, technology leaders need to show how technology can actually save time for teachers. Finally, she suggests that technology leaders must continue to maintain a working order with the present technology in the building, as nothing can slow a pro-technology plan faster than computers/networks that do not work.
Teachers are not forgotten or off-the-hook from successfully integrating technology into the schools. Teachers must participate/volunteer on technology planning committees. They must also begin to explore technology and find ways to successfully integrate technology that engages students in active learning. Teachers must also band together to support each other in technology growth. Finally, teachers must voice concerns about change in technology, and they must begin to initiate more excitement in their own teaching for the use of technology.
If this article suggests anything about technology integration, it is that successful integration cannot take place with successful technology planning. Additionally, successfully technology planning cannot take place until all interested parties are represented at the planning table. The top-down initiatives will not work, and one or two people's enthusiasm will not have a positive impact on educational change that is notably successful. Personally, I find this to be very helpful. I mentioned this last week as well, but social networking really is the key to success. My own initiative, hard-work, enthusiasm, and research means very little in successfully integrating meaningful change in education through the use of technology. This also provides me with some understanding of why my district's initiative to integrate technology is not moving forward successfully or at a regular pace.
Week 2 Assignments:
- Summarize Chapter 3 from the textbook
This chapter, for whatever reason, felt something like a throwback to something we had talked about in this program a long time ago. Perhaps a different discussion at a different time. Anyhow, the focus of this chapter was to reintroduce the idea that technology has a valuable place in schools and can be used effectively to encourage success for students. However, the decision to utilize technology tools to encourage success should not be taken lightly. As this chapter clearly demonstrated, issues of age appropriateness, student ability level (special education specifically), and other equity issues are just the tip of the iceberg of issues that must be considered by individuals and committees interested in pushing forward technology use in schools. It felt as if this was just a reminder to the user that said, "Technology is wonderful, but it comes with its baggage that must be discussed and cannot be overlooked."
Thankfully, the author never states that any of these issues should hinder the progress of planning for technology. It is implied, however, that any school interested in pushing forward the use of technology needs to clearly identify how they will deal specifically with these issues in their planning. It is, again, a hurdle, not a barrier.
Interesting thoughts - thanks - Louis
- Article/resource review on Professional Development
Bray, Barbara. " Learn By Doing: A Hands-On Approach to Help Teachers Use Technology." techLearning 01 Aug 2003 21 Sep 2007
www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=12803453 .
Through the process of completing my Action Research paper, I found that one of my true passions within Instructional Technology was professional development. Providing training sessions for my colleagues that left them excited and ready to try new things with their students was fulfilling. Of course, when the sessions were done, I was left with the feeling that they could have been, somehow, more effective for the participants. In her article on professional developments that are effective, Barbara Bray suggests that a hands-on approach is the way to most effectively train those willing to participate.
Bray has several suggestions on how to make the sessions more user friendly and hands-on. One example is the " See it, Learn it, Make it, Take it" model. Here the skills are demonstrated, followed by one-on-one assistance for participants who need it. The important piece to this model, however, is that participants immediately focus their skills on a unit or lesson that they can use in their classrooms. The remainder of the sessions focus on them making something useful for their own instruction, and then they are allowed to take that product with to use. The beauty is, in one session, the gap from theory to practice has been bridged. Suddenly educators are using skills they've learned to create items that are actually useful, destroying any pre-conceived notions that professional development typically does not fit into actual practice.
Another idea is team created curriculum material. Here the teams are taught the basic premise of the professional development session, and then set out on creating items collectively. This plays on two important strengths: leaders/naturals will assist the followers/strugglers, and the team work model will encourage a greater end product that is typically multi-faceted and more useful than an individually created item. While this wasn't the strongest model for professional development, it does makes some sense within the scope of encouraging technology use.
The Instructional Technology Academies are probably my favorite design style. Here, teachers take week or two to focus specifically on the use of technology and on gaining some specific instructional technology skills. The academies are to be well labeled and identified so that each user can match their individual skill set and needs with the correct academy (each academy focuses on different skills and types of users). While the academy does often require teachers to give of their personal time (they usually take place during summer and extended vacations), it sets aside a time where learning can take place without the stress of ongoing daily instruction. For most teachers, professional development is often a "day away" from their kids. Often the "learning" that takes place on those types of professional development seminars isn't as substantial as a specific time set aside in which to learn. The academy model allows for the time needed to actually gain skills and encourages participants to get in the right learning mindset before attending.
Bray suggests that rewards, prizes, stipends, and incentives are essential to encouraging teachers to simply participate in these training sessions. She also suggests that using a variety of training approaches is the most likely practice to truly encourage professional growth for your staff. Her end point, however, is the most important piece of the article. She suggests that by "making it relevant" to teachers, you engage them in a way that is far more important than the model of professional development used. Utlimately, if teachers see how it can positively impact their day-to-day teaching lives and how it can motivate their students, they will be far more willing to consider something new or innovative.
Week 1 Assignments:
- Summarize Chapters 1 and 2 from our text.
Chapter One
Chapter 1 is really just an introduction to the belief that effective planning can lead to improved outcomes for the incorporation of technology in education. The case is made that technology has a great potential to improve student success in the classroom. Picciano also suggests that technology's reach within school systems can be great, positively influencing not only educational outcomes but also administrative outcomes. This chapter explores the layout of the book and present the most basic elements of Picciano's fundamental arguments.
Chapter Two
Chapter 2 has several key points that must be mentioned. Picciano presents school districts as a Social System as opposed to an Economic/Rational System/Model. He argues that schools are made up of a great variety of people and they have a great variety of expectations placed upon them (as well as their own expectations). Schools cannot fit nicely into the Economic Model because schools do not have a clearly defined bottom line like businesses do. It is difficult and rather subjective to determine what the school's bottom line or "profit" is. It seems as if Picciano is setting up an argument, though, that suggests that schools cannot be evaluated solely on the Social Systems model because there needs to be some accountability put into place, and it does not fit strictly in the Economic Model, therefore, schools and school planning/leadership needs to find a reasonable place on the spectrum between these models in which to operate.
Picciano suggests that there are four common elements necessary to engage the Social System model when districts are planning: comprehensiveness, collaboration, commitment, and continuity. Including these four elements will result in greater buy-in from more parties and will lead to continual improvement and success within the educational system. Picciano also advocates for regular use of meaningful evaluations to constantly help guide the planning process. He suggests that schools need to begin to find the positive aspects of evaluation and they need to begin to shake the fears of the outcomes of that evaluation.
Near the end of the chapter, there is a distinction made between administrative and instructional applications. It seems that planning for administrative applications takes a more direct and shorter course. Fueled by central office leadership, the goals are set, the applications evaluated and selected, and the outcomes weighed to determine if they achieve the goals. Instructional applications seem to require more planning, more input from more parties, and don't have a clearly set path. Ultimately, as long as the goals are set and the outcomes evaluated to determine if the goals have been reached, the processes are similar.
- List the Technology Needs Assessments you find
*
Deutsch, Nellie (2003). Needs assessment survey.
Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Nellie's English Projects Web site:
http://www.nelliemuller.com/Needs_Assessment_Surveys.asp
What I appreciate about this Technology Needs Assessment is its relative simplicity of design along with its overall completeness in the amount and types of information it is attempting to gather. There seem to be three goals of this survey. The first is to gather information about what district employees know about the presence/focus/direction of technology in their district. The second is to gather information about how district employees feel about technology and the presence/focus/direction of technology in their district. The third goal is to evaluate the perceived skills and uses of technology of employees within the district. It is such a simple approach, but the information provided is essential information that must be uncovered to further the technology plan of a district.
* Lanclos, Patsy Technology Applications InventoryTechnology applications TEKS inventory.
Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Technology applications TEKS inventory Web site:
www.tcet.unt.edu/START/assess/teksurv.pdf
This is a fairly comprehensive Technology Needs Assessment document in evaluating the technology abilities and overall technological awareness of employees within a district. It is not as complete, however, in assessing the attitudes of those same employees. The simple Yes/No format does not allow for a lot of interpretation, which may lead to inaccurate or potentially meaningless results.
* North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium, (1997).
Learning With Technology Profile Tool. Retrieved September 16, 2007, Web site:
http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profwww.htm
This Needs Assessment tool is unique in that the final results paint a picture of technology use, but it also provides data that suggests the teaching styles and practices of the people in the building. It seems likely that a district can implement a technology plan that encourages change, but if the plan does not take into account the actual classroom practices of teachers in that district, then it seems likely that the plan will be ultimately ineffective. I recently had a discussion with our technology director in our district. He stated that, based on his philosophy of change relative to instructional technology, change could best be encouraged by addressing those individuals who are willing to accept change, even if it is a slow acceptance of change. He said that any efforts to train or focus on other members of the staff would yield little progress. Therefore, all of the training in our district has been focused on the leaders of change. While there is significant evidence to support his point (at least in part), I feel that those classroom teachers who are not open to change are ultimately the gate keepers of the advancement of technology. Not understanding their actual practices, their feelings about education and technology's place in education, and their perceived technology skill sets is detrimental to moving any effort to increase the use of technology forward. When we have an understanding of all individual's feelings, ideas, and actions, we can better design our plan to more completely reach our vision.
*I will note that I have three teacher focused Needs Assessment surveys here. I would like to see other assessments focused in these areas.
- Article/resource review on Change
Edwards, O (2007, September). What's Next. EDUTOPIA, [3(6)], [36-49].
The article, "What's Next?" in the most recent edition of Edutopia doesn't directly discuss the process of change in the classroom, but it reflects very clearly the absolute necessity of learning how to move schools (and their employees) torward change. The feature topic of this issue, the article is made up of ten small articles focused on the major movements or ideas that are on the horizons of schools in the coming year. While serving only as a best-guess prediction, the push to change and revamp education is evident through the focus points of this article.
The authors suggest that No Child Left Behind will be readopted and revamped, forcing schools (specifically teachers) to change everything they think they know about this legislation and to redirect the initiatives of the district to fit those changes. The debate over merit pay programs seems to be coming to a head and the writer suggests that it may begin to take root in schools nationwide this year. The heat will be on for teachers to find "new" ways to become more successful in their classrooms. A national trend to rearrange the school day has gained the attention of Edutopia authors. They suggest that there will be difficult discussions about the school day, school schedule, and school year that will shake up the traditional educators' worlds. They note the growth in online schooling and specifically mention Michigan's legislation which requires all high school graduates to experience online courses prior to graduation. Additionally, the author notes the shifting teaching styles of online teachers as they enter the traditional classrooms. Another important prediction is that there will be a huge revitalization in the subject of science and the way that it is taught in traditional classrooms. The magazine points out the rampant growth of online social networking sites and the potential growth schools may see in teachers utilizing these sites to engage students in aacademics. According to the article, there is a dramatic shift in career and technological course offerings nationwide. More students are finding value in attending career academies to further their vocational skills and workplace knowledge (and they are seeing undeniable financial benefits in choosing to do so). And art and music appreciation is again gaining steam in schools across the country.
While the article didn't focus on the process of change, it is important to examine why change is so necessary in schools today. Coming through college, I clearly recall a professor suggesting that, on average, schools are seven to ten years behind any shift in society because of the slow change in the academic institutions. It stands to reason, however, that to best prepare students in a world that changes at the speed of technology, schools will need to begin to accept change as an inevitable reality. As sad as it may be for many educators, the stagnant classroom will not survive in a global society (and teachers that refuse to change will only be crippling student potential as a result of their fear of change). The ten initiatives highlighted in this article are just the tip of the educational iceberg (apparently global warming has had its impact on this iceberg as well, considering the relative flood of educational movements that have flowed at schools in the past decade). School communities will really need to become well versed in the philosophy of change and wise school leaders will need to begin developing those "structures" of change in schools in the very near future.
Articles like this one remind me that it is truly an exciting time to be on the educational wagon. While the looming frustration of working toward systemic change can darken the path, the long-term outcomes and advancements that are potentially possible are invigorating. Education has become one of our society's favorite whipping boys for some time now. It seems clear, though, that we may be on the cusp of some really influential and positive changes within the educational world. To know that we are addressing the criticism with a true search for answers is rewarding. And the move of some districts/states/countries in real educational change will clearly force the hand of schools/states/countries that are perhaps not interested in partaking in that change. This, it seems, will be an unexpected but positive outcome of our global community and the ability to network and communicate so easily.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.