Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology use planning is the process of creating a near term school  technology "roadmap." This roadmap should have significant details, worded in terms of student learning, teacher knowledge gain, productivity improvements or other meaningful school-based goals,  for a period of approximately one year. Beyond that one year period,  higher level, less precise goals can also be outlined and documented.  The technology use plan needs to be reviewed frequently (perhaps as often as monthly, and at least quarterly), as technology is changing so rapidly that it is very easy to end up with a document that has many irrelevant, inappropriate, or other useless elements to it. The time horizon for 'detailed' plans should continue to extend out approximately one year, on an ongoing or rolling basis and will include components related to hardware (e.g., infrastructure, computers)  software (e.g., web based tools, computer programs) and training. The focus should always ultimately be on improving student learning in some meaningful (and hopefully measurable) way. 

 Input for the details of the plan need to be gathered from all appropriate constituents - teachers, students, parents, administrators, and perhaps community/business members, as well. Significant research regarding best practices, and "current ed tech thinking" needs to occur as well, as fact finding is critical to the viability - and success - of the plan. Visiting other schools, understanding thought leaders (via blogs, seminars, professional development events and so on),  the state of 'best' applications capabilities, etc. are all needed - at some level of detail - to start a viable plan. As the plan owners become more familiar with the edtech landscape, the reality of the plan's implementation at the school/district, and any budgetary implications of the plan, it can then be subsequently adjusted. It is clearly a living document, and people involved will need to understand that flexibility for all, and all being "light on their feet" are critical elements, as is a willingness to take on new ways of teaching that support the technology use plan. 

1. How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning?

The National Educational Technology Plan from 2010 is an effective tool that, if followed, would significantly improve student effective use of technology in school, and beyond. The concept of technology powering education is an excellent (if difficult to achieve) vision.  In addition, I feel that the NETP would aid students in developing so called "21st Century Skills" - that is, Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking and Creativity skills. In my opinion, students gaining these skills is a primary driver for adding technology to the curriculum. Technology also enables students to truly "show what they know" about academic subject matter, so on that basis as well, the NETP makes a strong case for increased educational technology. Add in productivity gains for teachers and administrators, and "meeting students on their own turf" to better engage them, and the NETP is clearly a framework that should be used by all schools in the United States.

That said, technology does not come free, and barriers were identified that can make the plans essentially non-implementable given today's educational environment. Some of the most difficult barriers include resistance by teachers, as well as a  fairly profound lack of knowledge by many administrators AND teachers about "how to proceed." Most educators probably buy in conceptually that more technology in school is appropriate, but getting beyond the conceptual stage to actually doing something are two different things. That said, some sort of framework is certainly needed, given that the US does not have a true "Technology Curriculum" (some elements of tech do appear in the Common Core State Standards), the NETP is, as I noted, a good framework.

In particular, the breakdown into the five main focus points of  engaging and empowering learners, using technology to improve (appropriate, focused) assessment, preparing teachers to fully embrace and utilize tech to augment their curriculum and engage students,  ensuring that the infrastructure (not just hardware!) is effective, in place and functioning, and that some attention be paid to using technology to improve the productivity of education from the individual teacher up to the district/state level are all powerful and apprpriate goals. Many details within each goal were defined. There was almost too MUCH information conveyed; this is not something that could have easily been avoided, however some additional wordsmithing would have helped make it a more user-friendly and readable tool to use

2. Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not?

I agree that detailed plans should not extend much beyond one year or so. The plans do, obviously, need to be revisited frequently (every 3-4 months), as noted by Mr. See: technology changes too rapidly to make longer range plans not very worth it. For that same reason, we must revisit the plans frequently and adjust as needed. I think that it is appropriate to craft longer-ranger, high level goals that are technology oriented, but not technology dependent.

I might add that I was VERY impressed and enjoyed John See's article, and I have already started to quote from it and utilize some of his thinking  with my principal about how to continue our ed tech integration at St. Leo the Great. His wording, logic, and forthright approach were much appreciated, and I plan to continue to circle back to and use his article.

It is perfectly appropriate to have, now, some sort of goal that speaks to cloud- based textbooks in place for (in my school's case) 3rd - 8th grades in 3 to 5 years. This would provide students with 24x7 access, include a wide array of internet-connected additional functionality to increase student learning and engagement, would provide some interesting notation/marking/sharing capability, as well as simply lightening their backpack burden. I'm pretty confident, by then, many/most of the issues still impeding this from easily becoming reality now will be resolved by then.

3. What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology?"

I do agree with this view, that tech plans need to be application-focused.  I tend to look at tech solutions in terms of the goal fulfilling the student- or educational- need. That will, ultimately, translate to an application, or a suite of applications, which was his point.

As I noted above, a reasonable longer-rang goal could be to anticipate integrating cloud-based textbooks (and support materials) into the curriculum.  The CK-12 non-profit, for instance, appears to be on their way with some solutions that should be sorted out (easily?) in 3 years. That goal is not really tech-dependent per say, as opposed to saying "We want another set of ipads (androids, whatever) in place in 2nd grade by 2015," which is clearly a tech-based goal.

As Mr. See noted, technology shifts far too rapdily to make meaningful long term, meaningful tech-based plans. In the shorter term, I still do not believe the focus be on technology. Just as in a business, we need to look at the NEED we are trying to fulfill - related, most typically, to the student. One way to do that is to look at Bloom's Taxonomy and determine the type of tool the teacher could apply to a student learning situation. This could range from 'Remembering/Understanding' (students practicing math facts)  to 'Evaluating/Creating'  (creating a movie synthesizing many different aspects, facts, prevailing ideas, etc. during the run up to the Civil War). This type of thinking can, hopefully, help the teacher look for applciation solutions (as well as NON tech ideas and actvities) to engage student learning.

4. What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad?)

For the last 4 years, I have created a technology plan for St. Leo the Great. It was not nearly as complete, and certainly did not cover the breadth of goals identified in the NETP. I  worked with my faculty (and did significant research on my own) to gather ideas, develop a plan, and later, gain understanding/buy in from the faculty. We developed high level goals for the faculty to focus on, benefiting student learning. For instance, last year, there were four overall goals (all very much student focused). One of the goals was to improve student search/website evaluation skills. Another was for students (3rd grade and up) to create student portfolios. A third was for us, as a school, to engage in many lessons on Digital Citizenship (from Common Sense Media).

The results were mixed, from teacher to teacher and grade to grade. Due to other circumstances (big personnel and other fires to be fought) at the school, I was unfortunately not in a position to coach and encourage my staff to accomplish these goals. So, the results were mixed. Upper grades did get much of the Digital Citizenship lessons, and much progress was made. Lower grades was more of a mixed bag (some lessons all crammed in to the last 3 weeks of school for instance). Similar results occurred for the improving search/website evaluation. If the teacher had a handle on how to teach it, progress was made. If not, no/limited progress occurred. That said, overall, the use of technology increased fairly substantially at the school, and for that, I am very proud of the faculty and students of St. Leo's.

In earlier years, we had a bigger need to get our infrastructure in order, and those plans went more smoothly, probably because I was more engaged and managed it on more of a day to day basis. In addition, much of that work was subcontracted out, and once we were able to understand how to manage the costs (via leasing in this case), it was a more controlled process.

I think this year will be different, as my responsibilities have changed and I will be able to spend more time on curriculum and edtech integration. Several of my other duties have been reassigned to other personnel, and so, in theory, I'll have more time to work with teachers, both 1:1 and in the classroom, to accelerate our edtech and improve student learning. Finally, a new teacher has been hired, and about 15 hours a week of his time will be spent directly in the classroom with teachers and students, with the sole purpose of adding 'more' (appropriate, useful) edtech to the curriculum.

In summary, if I'm more in control of the outcomes, the results seem to be more 'positive' and complete. If I have to rely on others (faculty in this case) and cannot provide the level of support/professional development they really need, the results will be more mixed. I'm happy that, this year, I will be able to devote more time to supporting the faculty to better engage edtech to improve student learning.