Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology use planning is a way of assessing where an institution currently is and where it would like to go in terms of how technology is used in the classrooms.  The end result is a formal document that summarizes the plan.  The ultimate goal of a technology program is to empower learners to be able to not only understand how a computer works, but to be able to use technology as a tool to achieve their goals in all areas of their lives.  This is a complex task because since technology is rapidly changing, planning for technology use is like trying to hit a moving target.  Technology use in classrooms is hard to plan for also because unlike in the content area that the class is focussed on, where the teacher is the expert, often the students are the experts when it comes to technology use.  This sets up a dynamic where it may be out of a teacher’s comfort zone to use technology in their everyday lessons.  

The National Educational Technology Plan 2012 is a rich document that gives a clear overview of 5 different areas education should focus on in regards to technology.  The plan has very specific examples that can be followed for implementation, along with objectives to be used as a framework for planning.  This is a tool that can help educators to know where to start, or how to go about revising their plans to stay up to date.

John See argues that tech use plans need to be short, not long term. I agree that the planning for the types of devices used in the classroom would ideally be short term.  In the past five years there has been a shift away from using traditional computers towards the use of tablets.  A five year technology plan that is not revised with a critical eye each year may prevent a school district from keeping up with new technology.

Other types of technology planning, such as broader goals related to using technology in the classrooms and teacher education in technology do not depend as heavily on current devices and software.  Having longer range plans in these areas, especially related to future budget earmarks for implementation, seems like it would be a good idea as long as there is flexibility that allows for integration of new technologies not yet known about when the plan is first written.

John See also argues that “effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology.”  I think that this comment hits on the same theme as his belief that technology plans need to be short term.  Focusing on the type of technology students use would date a technology plan, whereas focussing on how students relate to the current technology available allows for a fluid change in the devices being used with the same learning outcomes as goals. That being said, one does need to consider the type of technology to be purchased in the short term in any technology plan.

From my personal experience as a teacher, I believe that a district needs to keep their technology updated if they expect teachers to use it in their curriculum.  Our school has computers that are ten years old, and are slow and not able to run software and applications well.  Attempting to do science labs where the computers freeze, or take an incredibly long time to open an application from the internet is a roadblock in the ultimate goal for the students to learn the lab’s objective.  This is a frustrating situation for the students and the teacher.  No one likes to have a tool that doesn’t do its job properly.  So the technology objectives fall by the wayside because the devices are out of date and do not give the classroom access to current applications that relate to the curriculum objective.

I have found myself agreeing more and more with the ‘bring your own device’ model for technology use in education.  This model, which is already in play in many college environments, would allow for new technology to come into the classroom as the population of students buy it for their own personal use.  It would also fit in with the idea that technology plans should focus on applications, not technology.  Using the devices that are already available to students would allow them to practice on the technology they already have.  Since there would be a mix of devices in the classroom students and teachers would be exposed to how different devices are optimal for different applications.

Of course, this BYOD approach to supplying computers would not work if students did not have computers or tablets of their own.  It is not be a reasonable option for schools with a large percentage of low SES families.  And even in schools that can expect that many students would have access to their own devices, there would have to be a provision for students who do not have their own laptops or tablets to check them out from the school.  Many schools already have a similar program in place for checking out graphing calculators to math students. This model would allow for schools to buy fewer computers by using the ones that are already in circulation in the student body.  Schools could in turn refresh their inventory with new technology more often.

Researching technology plans has given me exposure to the issues that must be taken into consideration as a school writes its technology plan.  This addresses the AECT standard 3.4:  Policies and Regulations.

References:

Al-Weshail, A. S., Baxter, A., Cherry, W., Hill, E. W., Jones, II, C. R., Love, L. T., …Woods, J. C. (1996, May 7). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan: Version 2.0. Mississippi State University. Retrieved from:http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

  

Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education. (2010).Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

See, J. (1992)  Developing effective technology plans.  The Computing Teacher, 19(8). Retrieved from: http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

 

Tech Trends Assignment

This assignment started with reading the Horizon report on technology trends in Education.  I found the report to be informative, and thought provoking about how education will change over the next few years with the changes in the technology available.

In my classroom, where I have been teaching for six years, I have actually found that I am using less technology currently than I was when I first started.  This is because the computers I have for student labs are all nearly ten years old; they freeze often and take longer and longer with each passing year to run physics lab software.  I have found that it is not worth the high level of frustration on my students part and on my part to try to use out of date computers to run new software.   This issue is why I focused in on the tech trend of using educational apps that students can download to their own device.  I feel that as more students have their own smart phones, laptops, and tablets,  education could take on a “Bring your own device” approach and the lack of current classroom computers will not keep us from using this new technology in our classrooms.  This approach is already being used on many college campuses in purely online classes, and in classes that are a hybrid of face to face instruction and online content.

The app I chose, Vernier’s video physics cost $2.99.  There are other free apps out there that have similar features, but after playing around with all of them I found Vernier’s to be easier to use and worth the small fee.  This $2.99 per device is in contrast to software that costs hundreds of dollars for a site license to do “almost” the same thing.  I say almost because the more expensive software makes motion graphs for moving objects in front of motion sensors, but does not also take video to analyze with the graphs.  I feel that the app is better than the software because of the fact that you can watch the video of the motion as you analyze the graphs.

Designing this lesson relates to the AECT standards 1.1: Instructional Systems Design, 3.1: Media Utilization, and 3.2: Implementation and Institutionalization.  I had to consider the objectives of the lesson and how the app could enhance the lesson’s objectives and the best way to utilize the app in the course of the activity.

View this document on Scribd

Digital Inequality Assignment

Team Alpha’a Digital Inequality Assignment turned out to be a beautiful professional looking presentation:

Our group collaborated well to bring this project together.  We started by organizing a google hangout to plan our project and discuss who would do what job.  We then used google docs and a shared google drive folder to put our presentation together.  Throughout the two weeks we stayed in close contact through email.  I found the collaboration process to be as much of a learning experience as our project topic.  This project has helped me to visualize what online collaborative learning can “look like” in my own future classrooms, and how to make learning more social even with students who are each at their own computers in separate parts of the world.

We addressed the problem of the digital divide and digital inequality in our presentation.  The digital divide is about access to technology while digital inequality is about know how when using technology.  Before doing this project I had not really thought about digital inequality; it seemed that giving access to computers was what was important to close the gap between haves and have nots.  But as soon as I read about digital inequality I saw the obvious issue that if a technology user does not know what the technology can be used for or have the skills to execute this higher level type of use then they are at a considerable disadvantage.  The people who fit into this group are forming a digital underclass in our society.  Giving them reliable access to computers and the internet is important, but it is also important to give them the know how to use them.

Most families at my school are from have reliable access to home computers and the internet.  Many students at my school have smart phones that are nicer than mine.  It is common practice to expect students to have internet access for homework and projects, and also to know how to navigate the web to be able to complete research.  In the course of this project I have realized that the small group of students at my school who make up our digital underclass are at more of a disadvantage than those who are at schools of lower socio economic status.  Teachers at low SES schools know that they need to give students time to work in computer labs and some guidance in how to use technology when assigning projects.  Students at my higher SES school do not get as much in school computer time since so many students have access at home; teachers just don’t think to include it in their class time.

This assignment addressed several AECT standards.  Standard 2.4, Integrated Technologies, relates to using several different forms of media in producing materials.  Our final presentation started as a google presentation document, then was moved to powerpoint to be narrated, and was ultimately presented as a youtube video.  Standard 3.2, Diffusion of Innovations,  3.4, Policies and Regulations, and Standard 4.2 Resource Management, related to our group’s planning of how to distribute money and resources to close the digital divide and reduce digital inequality.  We had a rich discussion as we planned our project on how we could use the computers that were already available to the public more efficiently, the development of computer courses, how to efficiently staff computer labs with IT interns and graduates of the computer courses, and how to measure the results of our program.