A technology use plan is similar to a map. Identifying locations on that map is fairly simple. Planning on how to get to that location is a little more complicated. There are many different ways you could reach your destination. Do you want to fly, drive, or possibly go by boat. One method may be faster, another more interesting with sights to see, and another may be more leisurely allowing you to chat with others along the way. Maybe budget comes in to play and only one way is affordable. One way is not always definitively better than another. No matter how you go you will get there! With a technology use plan there are also many options. What most people think of is how do we get there, in other words, what technology do we need. There isn't always one answer and budget will come in to play. The goal of the plan is similar to the destination. The goal is not the technology or how we get there. The goal is "a vision that is aimed toward improving learning"(Sibley & Kimball, 1997). Included in the plan should be the systems that will support it along with the technology that will help achieve it.
The technology plan is like our state standards. It is a large goal that is broken down into smaller pieces of expectations and outcomes. However, unlike standards a plan includes the tools we will use to achieve the goal. Again, the tools don't just include the technology but the methods of implementation and the support needed to achieve success.. I included this picture from the CDE standard web page as an illustration of the bigger goals of the standards and possibly of a technology plan.
National Education Technology Plan 2010
How is this plan like making dinner? Seems like a strange question but there is a connection. Many people make a plan for dinner. When they leave for work they know what they will need, have taken something out to defrost, and maybe made a grocery list. They have a plan. The National Education Technology Plan 2010 is not that kind of plan. The scope of this plan would be like planning all your meals for a year.
It is still a usable plan and very user friendly. It is very easy to read yet thought provoking. It is something that all teachers should read, and I plan on making it available to people in my building. Because of it length and broad goals it is not something easily transferred into some sort of check list to be marked as progress is made. This is more of the big picture and goal of where we are headed. Anyone taking part in creating a technology use plan should first be required to read this document. It can be used to set the focus for the more specific building plans.
Developing Effective Technology Plans
Short Term not Long Term
This article authored by John See seems dichotomous on occasion. He discusses the importance of having a short technology use plan due to rapidly changing technologies. In the next paragraph he touts the importance of looking at "output" not "input." It is more important to plan for student outcome than just the tools they will be using. He continues to say that when you concentrate on the outcomes the specific technologies used are not as important -"if you can drive a Ford you can drive a Chevy." If this is true, which I believe it is than I think it is also true that if you can drive a new Ford you could also drive an old Ford.
This goes against his idea of only having a short technology use plan. If the "input" is not the key factor having a longer plan is feasible. No school has the funding to keep totally current with technology. I think it is very possible to write a plan that is longer term without being completely explicit in the exact technology that would be part of the plan. See does address this when he mentions revising a plan on a yearly basis in order to determine if the technology choices made previously continue to be the most efficient and cost effective. Furthermore, tools such as the Horizon Report 2012 K-2 Edition can guide planners in looking into future trends and determining the direction their plan may need to go on a long term basis. When he mentions the need for staff development another dichotomy arises. He states that "Technology plans that are not tied to long term staff development are destined for failure....Technology staff development must address these issues... awareness, application, integration and refinement, in a long-term systematic manner." Twice he mentions long term. It would be difficult to plan for staff development long term in a short term technology use plan.
While I agree with many things See mentions I do feel that a longer term plan is important. With the scope of the National Education Technology Plan 2010 and the predictions provided by the Horizon Report 2012 K-2 Edition, planning for technology use can be effective long term. Would long term mean 10 years? No, but it could look at things from 3 to 5 years in the future. But as See said, it would be important to revisit the plan every year and make any adjustments needed in terms of specific technology needs.
Integration of Technology into the Curriculum
As a second grade teacher I had some conflicting opinions with his ideas on not using technology to teach technology. His point about embedding technology use into all subject areas is important. However, with the younger students we spend a good deal of time teaching specific skills they need to do any and all of their work effectively and properly. We do teach handwriting so that when they write you can read it. Sometimes this needs to be done in isolation. We work hard to increase their literacy skills. When we do this we need to read in isolation. We can't always jump into reading content material and we need to look at all parts of reading such as phonics. We spend a great portion of the year still teaching the students how to learn to read so that they can then start reading to learn.
We will need to practice some keyboarding, practice how to navigate a website, how to save projects, how to use certain programs, and even just how to log on. This is hard to do without using technology. After acquiring these skills it is very rewarding to set the kids free with more independent project-based learning activities.
Focus on Applications, Not Technology?
Examining state standards and the NETP 2010 is a perfect transition to the statement above by John See.
Standards do not focus on specific skills, they focus on the application of skills as shown in the picture above. The NETP 2010 in its defining of broad ideas such as learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity doesn't mention specific steps or specific technologies in order to achieve success. They leave that up to individual sites to determine based on their student population, needs, and budgets. They help us picture what the destination will look like instead of directing how everyone will get there.
Technology Use Planning Experience
I have to be honest and say that I have virtually no experience in this area. We do have a technology committee that consists of the tech coordinator, the principal, teachers, and community members. Unfortunately, the plans they make have never really been presented to the staff beyond that we can find it in such and such a place on the server. It has never been discussed with staff personally. Besides this, the staff is asked yearly through email or a survey if there is something we want to acquire. There definitely has not been an emphasis on application. After searching for and finding our plan, there is some mention of application, professional development, and holding teachers accountable for making changes. Unfortunately, I don't think there as been any real articulation of what the plan consists of and the responsibility of the staff to meet its goals.
References
Kimball, C. & Sibley, P.H.R. (1997) Technology planning: The good, the bad and the ugly. Retrieved from http://www2.edmin.com/news/library/index.cfm?function=showLibraryDetail&library_id=16See, J. (1992) Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, 19(8). Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
No comments:
Post a Comment