Thursday, November 21, 2013

Technology Use Planning Overview


Developing Effective Technology Plans
Defining Technology Use Planning
Schools are eager to be cutting-edge.  Computing devices, with all their bells and whistles, can presumably launch a school into a new era and turn students into digitally-savvy 21st century learners.  This is true to some extent; however, it’s not a “magic wand” solution.  “If we build it, they will come” isn’t quite true when it comes to technology integration in a school.  Having and using technology tools effectively in a school environment is a very complex and coordinated operation.  A bit of reflection, research, and collaboration needs to take place before new initiatives are introduced.
In his article, Dr. See recommends that technology be used for teacher/student productivity, management of instruction, and curriculum applications.  He also recommends we develop technology learner outcomes in conjunction with other subject areas.  It is not a stand-alone initiative. Therefore, school building and school districts need a concrete plan to break down how all of these aspects will be addressed.
A Technology Use Plan is a professional document.  It is “a physical manifestation of a major planning effort that focused on improving all segments of instruction, using technology in a natural infusion process.” (Anderson & Perry, 1994).  It will not merely lay out data or reiterate the status quo. It will have an embedded impetus for change.  It will include action plans that propel a school forward towards better teaching and learning.  It will also be integrated into the school’s budget, curriculum, job descriptions, as well as the goals and missions of the school’s strategic long-range plan (Anderson & Perry, 1994).
Educators and administration need to be a part of it, as it will address all segments of school life. Ideally, other stakeholders such as community leaders, parents, and students should be involved in the collaboration as well.  Everyone’s voice, everyone’s wish list, and everyone’s motivations should be considered in a balanced way.
When setting up a plan, the first thing to do is to consider the starting point.  Planners need to ask themselves: In recent times, what has been going well and what hasn’t?  What are current trends within the state or district?  What are the specific needs that are not being met under the current model of technology in the school?
The next step is to establish goals.  It might be helpful to break into subcommittees to accomplish this task.  These goals need to be practical and attainable, and must be executable within a certain agreed-upon timeframe. They also need to tangibly and equitably address the needs of all participants and beneficiaries of the plan (administrators, teachers, students, and parents).
Once the plan is implemented, the committee should monitor and assess the success of the plan in relationship with its goals.  Each year, all components of the plan should be evaluated.  This includes “vendors, training of personnel, the reward structure, incentives, equipment compatibility, curriculum infusion, resource materials, professional development, public relations, administrative participation and support, auxiliary services, special needs student services, architectural requirements/modifications, networking, and financial/budgetary matters” (Anderson & Perry, 1994). This makes the document current, efficient, and effective.  This cyclical monitoring leaves no stone unturned. It also brings the plan down to earth, and ensures it’s not stuck in “brainstorming” mode.  After all, a plan isn’t really effective if it’s just rhetoric.
Effectiveness of the National Educational Technology Plan
The National Educational Technology Plan 2010 is a helpful resource for planning technology use in a school or a school district. In our society, the education sector’s two most pressing priorities right now are to increase college graduates and close the achievement gap with respect to high school graduation. To do this, innovation and efficiency are required throughout K-12 education. To transform our practice, the National Educational Technology Plan says we must a) be clear about the outcomes we seek, b) Collaborate to redesign structures and processes for effectiveness, efficiency, and flexibility, c) Continually monitor and measure our performance, and d) Hold ourselves accountable for progress and results every step of the way.   These components provide a solid structure upon which any school can build a sound plan.  The National Educational Technology Plan also makes recommendations in five essential areas of education: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity.  Again, a school could adopt this framework when making their own customized plan.  The goals and proposed sets of actions provided in the document are perfect launching points.
My only suggestion to improving this document would be to provide a list of links or references to case studies or exemplar schools that are embracing various facets of their proposals.  It is helpful to see specifically how other schools are tackling these initiatives with their own technology plans.
All in all, however, this Plan can serve as a “role model” for any school. The Plan’s contents initiate discussion and serve as a repository of professional and research-based information. It offers practical suggestions and well as rationale.  It gives all schools a sense of common vision (which, of course, can be adapted according to individual demands or circumstances). No school needs to feel isolated or detached from current pedagogical trends. In addition, the breadth and structure of this resource gives something for planners to aspire to.
Short and Long-Term Planning in Dr. See’s Article
I agree with See when he says that technology plans are most effective when they are short term.  Even though his opinion is more than twenty years old, the technology turnover rate hasn’t improved by any means.  In fact, I would argue that it is even more volatile.  The market for computers, computer peripherals, network infrastructure, apps, and programs is updating rapidly.  Brand, features, and price competition changes the playing field from year to year. In addition, planned obsolescence now seems to be the norm with many technology gadgets and stand-alone software packages.  It’s difficult to plan for the unknown when it is market-driven. That is, it’s difficult to know which exact items to order, how much they will cost, and how long they will last.  It’s hard to plan these sorts of exact specifications for anything “long term” (more than a year or two).  Everything in education is dynamic.  When staffing, student population, government mandates, “best practice” determinations, and budgets are prone to change (and we expect that), why wouldn’t it be natural that technology offerings would as well? Just as an administrator doesn’t plan for needing a particular teacher by name to teach middle school math in five years time, he plans for needing someone to fill that role.  He knows the general needs of the school, and fits the supply to demand on an annual basis.
That is why See’s suggestion to tie plans to a budget cycle makes sense.  It’s a compromise of vision (educational goals) and reality (budget and personnel). Therefore, what I would propose is making two types of plans: long-term “vision” (e.g.. what do we want the specific roles of technology to be in our school?) and short-term “checklist” (e.g. what highly-rated device makes learning X most effective, and how many do we need?)  They would be written and viewed side-by-side. This plan would be visited yearly during the “rude awakening” of budget planning.  Stakeholders making these decisions would be able to alter the short term plans (in alignment with the long term plans) as needed to better suit the variables that may have changed since the previous year.
Application over Technology in Dr. See’s article
This plan also touches upon what See refers to as “output-based” and “input-based” plan models as well.  The desired student and teacher (qualitative) outcomes should determine the product- and number-focused (quantitative) plans.  That is, what a school wants to do with technology should affect what they purchase, and not vice versa. I believe this is what See means when he calls upon planners to focus on the application of technology over technology itself.  It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and request iPads for all students, but that is not an effective plan if there’s no real “drive” behind it. Productivity or creativity goals should be set out before talking about the specifics of who, what, where, when.  (The “why” comes first.)
This kind of strategic planning also makes sure the right tools and products are being purchased.  If the art department would like to feature digital publication skills to address some of its standards, then particular software, cameras, and printers will be included in the plan.  If the science department is engaging in complex or expensive chemistry experiments, then a virtual lab might make the most sense, and certain cameras or monitors will be required to accommodate that aim.  If the foreign language department is increasing its focus on multicultural and bilingual collaboration, then networking and webcam devices can be sought after.  Every classroom will have unique needs, and every school within the district will have different priorities.  The rationale behind every teacher’s “wish list” should be considered when making a short-term plan, and every short-term plan should stand beside a long term plan.  Every expenditure of money, time, or staffing with regard to technology can and should be correlated with the “big picture” goals.
My Experience with Technology Planning
Last year I had the opportunity to stand on my school’s technology committee.  However, I felt a little bit like a fish out of water as I was just filling in the computer teacher role for a year, and was essentially asked to be part of the group by default.  It was a very interesting experience, and one that left me filled with a bit of wonder and awe.  Reflecting on that experience, I did not involve myself as much as I should have.  (I was already quite overwhelmed with teaching/planning/assessment duties and the learning curve of a first-year teacher in that domain.)  However, I now have a greater appreciation for the time, effort, collaboration, and dedication it takes to establish a technology plan at one school.
One of the first things I noticed was a very heavy focus on hardware, (e.g. what should we buy, how many, and what will it cost?)  This is exactly what See warned us against—prioritizing technology itself over its application.  Very rarely did we discuss why we needed certain machines or devices.  At the time I appreciated the fast-paced nature of this kind of decision-making.  However, I realize now that the “big picture” had been neglected during these discussions.  The long-range plans were focused more on inventory than rationale.
In a similar vein, another frustration was choosing to purchase equipment for teachers to use who seemingly had no real interest in or knowledge about technology.  Being an international school, there is a high turnover rate for teaching staff.  Each member comes in with different training, preferences, and interests.  For example, a previous teacher had made a case for the school to purchase a large amount of Smart Response clickers, but no one in the school had ever used them or cared to use them since.  That one particular year, the teacher’s wish list was considered without thinking through the implementation of this technology. There had been no professional development, and few teachers saw the benefit of taking extra time to figure it out.
I believe it is the school’s job to provide professional development opportunities about technology (as well as time and collaborative space to figure out how/when/why to use the programs, devices, etc.)   Our school might have been better off considering See’s suggestion of offering specific opportunities to promote awareness, application, integration and refinement.  This increased interest and confidence might have also led to more teachers getting involved with technology planning.
It doesn’t stop with offering professional development, however.  Our school should also require their staff to buy into it. It should not have been acceptable for a teacher to say that they just aren’t interested.  To get technology into students’ hands, it must first get into teachers’ hands.  A school should do whatever it takes to make that happen.  And staff members should need to know they must be on board. “Only when teachers are attuned appropriately to purposes of the plan, given sufficient ownership in ideas and opportunities for growth through the plan, and provided the level of training they deserve will they ensure full infusion of technological concepts into the curriculum and its related activities.” (Anderson & Perry, 1994).
A sense of “overwhelm” was prevalent in the school when it came to technology use. A good plan would have taken a closer look at that factor before worrying about the newest gadget to buy, or worrying about other private schools having iPad programs in place.
Not to sound doom and gloom, but engaging in these technology planning meetings was not as effective as it perhaps could have been.  If we had been armed with a copy of the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 (and other research), more teacher support and involvement, and a clearer vision, there is no doubt we would have created a more effective document.  Nonetheless, what we came up with was a good starting point.  Even the act of pausing to consider technology’s role in a school environment is a step in the right direction.
References
Anderson, L. & Perry,  J. (1994). Technology planning: Recipe for success. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (1994)1, 349-353. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/tp_recipe.cfm
See, J. (1992). Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, (19) 8. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: Education Publications Center. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf 

No comments:

Post a Comment