All work is completed
WEEK 4 WORK
District Technology Plan Evaluation Analysis
I have been involved on the Technology Action Committee within the district, but never fully understood what I was doing until I was able to analyze this data. It was important for me to use the DPI evaluation to then see what we did well as a committee and where we could improve.
I believe my district has been progressive in thinking but not always in action. Many of our goals have been reached, but we are behind in others.
We have a new administrative software program for the district which will definitely put us ahead of others, while our phone system could use a major re-haul. I don’t think that this is the most conducive of plans but one step at a time, I guess…
Introduction
The introduction includes a mission statement which expresses the philosophy and goals for the technology plan and the library/media portion.
Current research adequately describes what is intended by the goals listed in the previous section. Some research also presented opposing viewpoints regarding the use of technology. I thought that was interesting.
Background
District technology vision is outlined in ten components as used in the 1998 Plunkett Raysich Masterplan study
Budget information/projection and description of people involved are stated here. (Content Area Teams, Technology Task Force, Library Media Personnel, Administration and School Board Members.) A very detailed background on the District is explained here as well.
Needs Assessment/Current Status
The goals for several previous plans are stated and their current status is provided. Student proficiency was listed with results from a TechLiteracy Assessment in 8th grade.
EnGauge needs assessment was implemented in 2002-03 and 2006-07 to determine staff proficiency. Based on the results, a chart listed the indicators, mean score and variation for both surveys, as well as a recommendation for improvement.
Effective Teaching and Learning Practices were addressed in the recommendations, but were not clearly stated.
There was no information here regarding Information Resources and Learning Tools. (However, some information was addressed in the background portion)
Nothing in this portion addressed the Resources and fixed assets.
Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives were clearly labeled and prioritized.
They reflect a connection between the research and the district’s current needs.
Implementation Action Plan
This plan is clearly stated, and each person’s role/responsibilities are stated with projected timelines. Each goal is narrowly analyzed and carefully addressed.
Monitoring Progress and Evaluating the Plan
The Technology Action Committee annually monitors progression and implements changes whenever necessary. These changes are presented to the school board.
There is flexibility in order to allow for revisions in the plan based on new developments or opportunities.
Procedures and Policies
Policies are addressed but not immersed within the plan, but found within the appendices.
Chapter Four: Technology in Educational Administration
This chapter seemed much more promising than it actually was. As a future technology director, I appreciate the importance of understanding administrative software, but learning the structure of a data base or spreadsheet program seems ineffectual. However, I digress.
One of the first elements presented in Picciano’s chapter on Technology in Educational Administration is the fact that the main focus of technology is how it can be implemented into the classroom and not throughout the whole school/district more effectively. There are so many ways in which newer, more intricate software could manage the daily structure of a school more successfully than it has in the past. One way is to have a diverse data base which enables district employees to administer to various duties.
I relate to this especially this year when my district is just executing Infinite Campus. This has been a huge undertaking, and there are many benefits to using district-wide software administratively. No matter what the job title, each person is able to access crucial information which only can benefit the students, teachers and the like.
Another key component of this chapter is to consider various specialized applications such as phone systems, grading software, and energy management. Utilizing many different factors allows all district members to benefit, not just the individual classroom.
Lastly, the data being used is what should make the decisions. As we have learned so far in this class, it is essential to plan for change, consider the needs, involve the right people, but if the technology is not implemented efficiently, it is useless.
As a classroom teacher, it was important for me to read this chapter and comprehend that technology is not just for my classroom, but for the whole educational community. Maybe with being more aware of that fact, I can become a major component in the technology revolution within my own district.
Adminstrative Evaluation Tool
In the article, “A Process for Evaluating Student Records Management Software”, Vecchioli recommends some basic steps to the evaluation process of administrative software. First of all, she presents some crucial steps that need to be considered. A committee needs to be formed immediately in order to identify what decisions need to be made. A variety of members must be used: teachers, administration, community members, school board members and even students. Each individual must provide adequate input per his/her expertise. Other elements addressed are setting priorities and where to begin. The first things to consider are the funding availabilities, the school’s needs, and the possibility of effective training for all involved. Lastly, Vecchioli mentions how critical it is to involve the administration. Their crucial role often drives the direction of the decision-making since
administration should have goals for their school.
Some elements that I found were negative with this process were its applicability and practicality. These guidelines seemed to be for smaller schools with fewer considerations. Not much went into the decision-making recommendations, or the actual implementation of the final decisions. Vecchioli should have followed up with steps a committee should follow once decisions were made and software was chosen.
Overall, it was a very basic list of how to get started, but not how to be successful once major decisions were made.
Vecchioli, Lisa (1999). A Process for Evaluating Student Records Management Software.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 6(14). Retrieved October 10, 2007 from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=14 .
Article #4: Staff Development in Instructional Technology
In the article, “Teaching the Teachers: Technology Staff Development That Works”, Tenbusch explains five main strategies to effectively train teachers with technology. First of all, he expresses the need to educate instructors since we are remarkably behind in skills as compared to our students. Since children have spent their lives immersed in all aspects of gadgets from games like Nintendo, having cable access, and being able to surf the World Wide Web, their talents are far more advanced from their instructors. This creates a sense of fear and apathy among the adults, as well as feeling threatened when trying to lead students in an area where one feels inadequate. Therefore, Tenbusch’s first recommendation is to get teachers excited about technology. This would involve finding one’s passion and using technology to further explore in that area. For example, introducing a word processing program to an English teacher might give that teacher many new ideas for writing. Once the excitement is sparked, and their experience is glitch-free, the second step would be to address the appropriate level of skills the instructors have. Once
those are analyzed, teachers are challenged to utilize those skills in the classroom. Any skills that are not acquired by this time could be learned from the students which may alleviate some of the teacher’s fears.
Next, the instructors should be allotted an effective amount of time to peruse through the technology learned. This would allow for some individual problem solving and building of confidence. Having a technology expert close at hand would also allow for both of those aspects. The fourth step is to present some sort of incentive for further implementation of technology. By offering professional development training and paid on the job training, teachers would further benefit. Additional time to develop plans would be beneficial to both the teachers and their students. Lastly, Tenbusch recommends that if a teacher does not comply with the technological changes and chooses not to commit, their technology should be taken away and given to a teacher who would make use of it. He states that technology is too costly to be wasted. All five of these strategies for staff development truly have the instructor, as well as the student, in mind.
Personally, I agree with four of the five strategies that were presented. The last one, somewhat of a disciplinary move, is a bit harsh. I agree that technology should not be wasted, however if it is taken away, that teacher never is given a second chance. In my district, there is a teacher who is two years away from retirement, and he refuses to even open his email, even though our district has now gone paperless. He still has a computer and is required to go to staff development sessions, even though his skills are low. The technology director has not given up on him. In fact, he has one of the faster computers so that he doesn’t get frustrated more often than he already does. If he had his computer removed, it would only justify his defiance and promote his refusal to change.
As for Tenbusch’s other strategies, they seem to be a most logical and effective transition to successfully train educators in a technology staff development.
Tenbusch, James P. (March 1998). Teaching the Teachers: Technology Staff Development That Works.
Electronic School, Retrieved October 1, 2007, from
http://www.electronic-school.com/0398f1.html
WEEK 3 WORK
Article #3: Application of Technology
McNeely, a senior at North Carolina State University at the time of publication, focuses on how to effectively use technology to instruct the “Net Generation” in his article. He focused on several characteristics of this generation and how they would benefit from instruction using technology. First, he states that this age bracket has “learned by doing” since the onset. Whether it was working collaboratively on “Oregon Trail” or devising an effective presentation using PowerPoint, this group always learned by doing. They tend to get bored if not challenged, but when they are, they respond with innovation and creativity. The next area is to learn technology with human interest. Although many IM or text, there is still a need for some aspect of human interaction. Online courses without discussion on chat boards or feedback from the instructor are less inspiring. Another concern is that instructors need to augment what is already being accomplished with technology. An example is that a teacher may lecture off of a PowerPoint presentation, but he/she is not utilizing the technology to its fullest capacity. Lastly, McNeely refers to the ease of plagiarism and how instructors need to adapt their coursework to uphold academic integrity. Even though it is easier to cut and paste information, instructors are able to check for plagiarism just as easily as students can cheat.
This young author also stresses some challenges to using technology in the classroom. First and always the main concern is funding. Also, if schools are not up to speed with the latest technology, then how can they prepare the future leaders to succeed if they are learning on outdated computers or programs? The technology that is being introduced must be practical as well as relevant to the material being addressed.
I found this article quite refreshing. I am a generation ahead of the “Net Generation”, so learning how to apply technology to instruction was eye-opening. Since these students are already familiar with how certain technology is best utilized, why should we make them take a step backward if it is not made the most of within their instruction? Capitalizing on the learning structure this generation is already familiar with would seem the most obvious, while incorporating the most effective way to use technology in both their present and their future. This article has already been a catalyst within my classroom. I have evaluated what technology I use already and how it could be implemented more efficiently, resulting in the most production for my students. I plan on focusing more on the collaboration and innovation, as well as the formal instruction. Lastly, I am not too proud to say that I am willing to learn how to best use technology from this generation.
McNeely, Ben (June 15, 2006). Using Technology as a Learning Tool, Not Just the Cool New Thing.
Educause, Retrieved October 9, 2007, from
http://www.educause.edu/UsingTechnologyasaLearningTool%2CNotJusttheCoolNewThing/6060
WEEK 2 WORK
Chapter 3: Technology, Learning, and Equity Issues
This chapter focuses on a few key elements: technology centered education, when to introduce technology in education, how technology affects special education, and socioeconomic, equity and minority issues. One of the first questions to get my attention is “Will computers replace teachers?” No wonder why so many educators are afraid of technological changes. With ill-informed people making statements like that, technology doesn’t stand a chance. Other interesting information was presented that hit close to home: Because technology is good, more technology is better. We have learned through this course and many of the previous ones as well, that a well-designed plan must ensue prior to implementation. Like many of my cohorts who teach in Waukesha, I was astounded when the departments would receive cameras, printers, software, etc., without even asking for it. Usually one shouldn’t complain when receiving such gifts, but why have thousands of dollars sitting in closet due to lack of training or need?
Also in this chapter, it was discussed that the earlier students learn to use technology, the better off they will be. I have a five year old who takes great pictures with our digital camera, plays games and preschool lessons on Playhouse Disney.com, and I know that he will need these skills to be successful. In fact, I volunteered in his Kindergarten class this a.m., and most of the children had good mouse skills and clicking capacity! Just imagine what technology these children will be using in 10 years!
Other areas of interest in this chapter were issues of equity among socioeconomic, gender and minority. These areas will be difficult to even out. Unless there is some mandate to level out the playing field, or conscious change among school districts and states alike, these inequalities will affect students and their future successes.
Lastly, the most heartwarming issue presented is how technology has assisted Special Education students. I think that this is the first playing field that needs equity. So many technological advancements have assisted children with special needs that it not only improves their learning, but their self esteem as well. I have a student who suffered a brain injury at six weeks old. This year is his “second” senior year, but I had the opportunity to instruct him in my Mass Media class last year. ‘Andy’ now is creating the wrestling highlight video for the coaches and is in charge of filming at every meet. I know this is not the same type of instructional tools that were mentioned in Ch. 3, but it is evident that students with special needs are able to feel a part of the school and learn at the same level as other students. What great new opportunities are ahead of them!
As an educator who plans on continually implementing technology in my courses and become more involved in the district plan for change, I was enlightened by this chapter’s information regarding such issues as equity, special education, and the introduction of technology. Hopefully, I will be able to put this information to good use in the future.
Great summary and weaving of personal thoughts - Louis
Resource #2
Dr. Larry Anderson: Technology Planning
Podcast found at www.techsavvy.org
Once a middle school principal, and now the founder and director of the National Center for Technology Planning, Dr. Larry Anderson has a long list of accolades which enable him to share his insights regarding Technology Planning. Tim Wilson, podcaster at The Savvy Technologist, interviews Dr. Anderson regarding the advantages districts have in develop a comprehensive technology plan. The first solid benefit listed was the concept of leadership development. Although the insurgence of site based management opened the door for this element years ago, creating a technology plan allows teachers and administrators to work closer together. It is essential, as we have learned in our class discussion and in the first few chapters of the text, Education Leadership and Planning for Technology, leadership development is a true benefit in this plan. When members of the district collaborate ideas and views of the future, it is inevitable that these people learn more about each other’s strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures. This generates a stronger team, willing to go through the trenches together. The next advantage to a valuable comprehensive plan is the involvement of the community. Once the community becomes involve in the district’s forethought and arrangement, resources would no doubt flood in. It is evident that community members only want the students to succeed within the district, so they are willing to provide priceless gifts, talents, and time. A side note is that once schools are cognizant of the resources available, team members are able to tap into those resources without desperate searches. Finally, the crucial building block to an effective plan is to create student leaders. Anderson states that the days of teachers lecturing while students sit idly by, are over. It is evident that if a district desires an increase of student learning of technology, they must involve the student!
A strong sense of leadership develops when students are involved in the planning process. Gaining the student perspective is a critical element.
Wilson also questions Anderson on the state mandated technology plans. Anderson, although somewhat lax of a response, ultimately states that most school districts have two plans: one is the ‘cookiecutter’ style plan that is mandated and the other is the plan the district has that is molded to fit its needs. How sad, I thought, that our own states don’t understand what is needed at the district level. To be deceptive seems to be the only way. After having analyzed several needs assessments this week, it’s apparent that a district must be able to craft a technology plan that will satisfy the individual schools and students, not the state.
One of the final comments Anderson made during this podcast was what is most important in a successful technology plan. He couldn’t stress more that a plan should be simple. More people become invested if they comprehend what the final goals or objectives are. Keeping goals limited make them more obtainable by a certain date other than choosing some abstract time period with a general goal. Anderson also covered some key ideas to add other than a simple plan. He stated that naming a DRI, directly responsible individual, not only highlights certain people’s attributes, but it shows the involvement of each member. One design element he learned from someone else was to include lessons learned.
Seeing where one comes from will only help pave the way to success. Lastly, a key to achievement is to have commitment from the top down. When Dr. Anderson stated that the superintendant needed to be onboard from the beginning, the only think I could think of was the simulation our class participated in on the first night of this class. If “Al” was not involved, no one progressed. How true.
Dr. Larry Anderson shared in this podcast, a variety of tools necessary to create a winning plan. Leadership, involvement, simplicity and commitment are the keys to making a comprehensive technology plan.
REFERENCE:
Wilson, Tim (Producer). (2005) Dr. Larry Anderson: Technology Planning. Podcast retrieved from
http://support.hopkins.k12.mn.us/STP-LarryAnderson.mp3
WEEK 1 WORK
Needs Assessments
Having been involved with needs assessments in my district, I was aware of the overabundance of assessments on the web. However, through this assignment, I was able to take a more intensified look at the types of assessments and how they were utilized in different districts.
The first assessment I chose to analyze was from Oklahoma State University, found at http://www.it.okstate.edu/itprojects/needsassessment/finalreport.pdf. This comprehensive document entails the whole process of assessing technological needs at the university level, and then implementations of such suggestions. The process itself began in 2004 with simple surveys designed to analyze the Informational Technology needs of students and staff alike. From those results, plans ensued and objectives/goals were recommended. Although the survey itself was quite simple and limiting, the results of the survey allowed the university to effectively plan and follow through with improvements in the university’s use of technology.
The second assessment I chose is the EnGauge survey which was implemented in the Mukwonago District. The EnGauge survey was once federally funded, but is now through subscription service. It involves educators, district and building administrators, building and district technology coordinators, board and community members, students and parents. Once surveys are completed, this committee analyzes the results. Our district implemented this survey in 2005, and has since used the results to incorporate goals and objectives that the Technology Action Committee (TAC) agreed upon. I was lucky enough to play a small role on the TAC committee. The vision of EnGauge is to provide profiles for three elements: student profile, educator profile and project profile. Therefore, the results show the vision in six conditions for effective technology use. Those are Vision, Effective Practice, Equity, Systems and Leadership, Access, and Educator Proficiency.
Out of the two, the EnGauge survey seemed much more detailed and specific that the one that OSU used. This may be due to personal preference and familiarity, but the latter seems more effective to create a clearer plan with predictable results.
(2004). Information Technology Needs Assessment OSU/IT. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from Oklahoma State
University Information Technology Web site:
http://www.it.okstate.edu/itprojects/needsassessment/finalreport.pdf
NCREL, (2004). enGauge®: A Framework for Effective Technology Use. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/
Resource #1 for Week #1
Website review: How Organizations Deal with Change
The website I chose to review was “Six Change Approaches” devised by 12Manage based on Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979) research model for organizations to “prevent, decrease, or minimize resistance to change”. The website, which focuses on organizational change, reorganization, and restructuring, first provides the four main reasons why one resists change. First, people are more concerned with some element that directly affects their own interests, other than the organizations. This is very easy to find within any school district. Educators, administration, and the like, must focus on their daily jobs and what could ease their individual distresses, and not necessarily make the district itself better as a whole. Next, due to communication problems or inadequate information, misunderstandings occur, resulting in resistance to change. Often in a school, new information regarding changes would make it through the gossip mill first before actually being presented formally. One might hear, “Well, I heard that new software program for grading is way too complicated. I’m going to stick with what I know.” Therefore, one might never even give the new technology a chance. Relating to that comment, the next reason why people refuse to accept change is insecurity. Why go through the instability, when one way that is familiar works, even if it is ancient? Lastly, change often is prevented when there is disagreement regarding the reasons for change. It is critical that the people involved in the implementation of the change agree to some point, and learn how to understand others’ beliefs along the way. For example, last week during the simulation, Irene, Will and Pat were resistant to change. However, the others were able to bring them to a point of understanding, therefore eventually getting Mastery and Renewal. However, in Kotter and Schlesinger’s research, it is evident that if there is disagreement from the onset, the resistance would win out.
After discussing these key motives for opposing change, Kotter and Schlesinger then provide the six approaches to deal with such resistance. Obviously, the first introduces Education and Communication. No matter what type of plan one creates, the lack of information and inaccurate information would destroy any chance of successful implementation of change. When requesting funding for certain technology like Smart Boards, one cannot just claim they could use one in his/her classroom without first justifying their reasoning with factual support. Also, without proper communication, those changes would never occur. The second most effective approach is to have adequate participation and involvement. As Picciano stated in “Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology”, a valuable plan must have dedicated participants who will diligently strive for success, no matter how long the process takes. Next, having supportive management and employees often allows for adequate change. Like we learned in the simulation during the first class, it is essential to involve others who are highly motivated to provide adequate training to condone change. Negotiation and agreement are the next vital elements to consider. Discussion and communication amongst those involved always assists in movement. Sometimes, incentives may be offered or considered, such as substitutes used to cover classes while instructors get training on the technology which is being considered is a great trade-off. The final two components are considerably different, in my opinion. Kotter and Schlesinger consider that manipulation and coercion are appropriate approaches to initialize change. When co-workers become resistant, it takes certain leaders to become the decision-makers to a greater extent. Ironically, this is what occurred in the simulation. It seemed as if we had to force them to come along with the decisions that were being made, even if they chose not to. The coercion factor plays a role when the management truly forces employees into accepting the change or deal with the consequences: job loss dismissal, transfer or not promoting. This felt quite extreme for an educational institution, however it does occur. In our district, we are implementing a new grading and attendance system. A few teachers who are ready to retire have balked the change. Those who did not care to adapt chose to retire last year. This doesn’t follow Kotter and Schlessinger’s last approach, but the results are ultimately the same.
Overall, I was impressed with the list of reasons for resistance and approaches to deal with resistance. Although it seemed geared toward the business world, it was very applicable to the educational system. As stated within, several of these approaches were familiar and often confirmed what my group did during the simulation. No matter what, change is inevitable; it’s just the manner in which it is dealt with is the difference.
Kotter, 2007. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Six Change Approaches Web site:
http://www.12manage.com/methods_kotter_change_approaches.html
Chapter 1 Review: Introduction to Technology and Planning
In Picciano's text, "Education Leadership and Planning for Technology", the first chapter focuses on some historical aspects of computer usage in the educational setting as well as considering the cause and effect, if you will, of what that development did to schools around the world. It also spotlights that change is inevitable within a district, yet that alteration is both difficult and time consuming if an effective plan is not established from the onset.
On a personal note, I found it quite interesting to peruse the historical influences the computer has had in education. Having graduated college in 1987, I had no prior training on computers. Three years into my first position, I had to instruct students in using computers for word processing and skills tutoring programs. I was self taught, and received no other training such as staff developments, for several years. That is where the planning of incorporating technology into the curriculum is essential. Expecting educators to “catch up” to the curriculum, just for the sake of using technology is outrageous.
Careful analysis and planning is just one of the three main concepts that this book will discuss. The other two are application of technology and proper implementation of all of the tools necessary for success. The remaining chapters will show the way.
Chapter 2 Review: Basic Concepts and Foundations
Chapter 2 sets the stage for planning. When providing a basic framework for school districts to develop a proper plan, Picciano cautions that planning means something different to each person or organization. Also, a plan will probably be utilized differently by each district. Lastly, the needs of district must be taken into consideration to be effectual.
The plan itself must be comprehensive, collaborative, have commitment, and continuity. The plan must encompass the district’s goal for change, have a variety of people involved, and those involved must have the tenacity to see the plan through on an ongoing basis.
The model for planning was derived from extensive research of the social process model. Not only should the individual school be considered, but the district as a whole, as well as the community’s goals need to be reviewed. This even extends further to the state’s and nation’s views for technology and education.
Since the plan itself entails a 3-7 year plan, those involved with the initial process need to have a positive attitude, yet understand the reality of failure. Not all plans work, but having a collaborative group who won’t abandon the original ideas will assist in success.
Within my district's Technology Action Committee, we have structured a 4 year cycle, with goals established for each year. It is very difficult to remain hopeful and optimistic when there are budget concerns, but the minor successes do feed the fire. (This was much like what we experienced in our group on Monday night. The successes rarely occurred within the first year, but as we were making the right decisions, people in the group were more enthused!)
The next element is the application and objectives of the technology. Clear and concise goals must be established so that proper evaluation is effective. If the assessment is too vague, the committee may never see specific results, causing an ineffective plan or poor direction. The goals must also be specific to the curriculum.
A language arts goal would not be the same as a math goal. This is where the variety of participants is also essential.
Overall, it’s apparent that a solid plan needs direction, committed participants and clear objectives before implementing technology.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.