As an indesputable part of our daily and work lives, effective technology awareness, application, integration, and refinement have come to define the global economy that we and our students now live and work in. As educators, the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 lays out the vision for technology use in teaching and learning along with goals and recommendations for how to successfully get there.
The NETP 2010 is as important of a resource for effective technology use planning as the Common Core State Standards are to effective curriculum design. Integral to any technology use plan is a comprehensive understanding of the five core aspects of the NETP 2010, which are 1) Learning, 2) Assessment, 3) Teaching, 4) Infrastructure, and 5) Productivity. These, along with their recommendations, enhance our focus as educational technologists on application instead of technology for technology's sake. In essence, the NETP 2010 provides a sort of clairvoyance to the process of designing a technology use plan.
In "Developing Effective Technology Plans", the idea is suggested that technology use plans be short term, perhaps one year, as opposed to a longer period due to the rate with which technology continues to advance. As long as such a goal is focused on application and scalability rather than technology, I believe that such a focus is desirable. The key for me is that any such plan would need to be supported by research for future research and development of the proposed technology so that a given organization will be able to build on their technology and staff development rather than start anew three years into the future. This sentiment is not an aversion to change, but rather, an effort to increase productivity as one aspect of a sustainable technology use plan.
See referred to a progression of technology mastery that begins with awareness, and proceeds through application and integration, all the way to refinement. A developmental process such as this one is imperative to any effective technology use plan as a core characteristic of the plan's infrastructure. Regardless of the hardware, software, or features that any given technology may purport, if no one is excited enough or willing to use it in a way that would enhance their teaching, learning, assessment, infrastructure, or productivity, then the relative quality of such a technology is irrelevant and for naught.
This consequence was seen in the recent attempt by the Los Angeles Unified School District to roll out 1:1 iPads throughout their district. While the chosen device has a lot to offer to educational organizations, the LAUSD's initiative initially failed due to the absence of proper training and adequate infrastructure.
Conversely, the Blaine County School District, a geographically isolated district in Sun Valley, Idaho is currently in their second year of their a successful technology use plan, the foundation of which is built on staff buy-in and technology support. While visiting BCSD as an inservice presenter, I was able to learn about and participate in their technology use plan as I facilitated three sessions dealing with Google Apps for Education, a cloud-based suite of tools that the district had recently adopted to increase productivity among administrators, teachers, students, and their community.
While no two technology use plans will or should look the same, we are at a point where we now have the resources available to leverage technology to enhance the learning experiences and opportunities for content-creation, communication, and collaboration like never before. Though we do have the option of ignoring such calls to action as the NETP 2010, our students are counting on us to prepare them for the ever-changing world that they are living in and will graduate into, a world that depends on awareness, application, integration, and refinement of technology in our daily lives and at work.
References:
See, J. (1992, May). Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, 19(8). Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
U.S. Department of Education. (2010) National Education Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
I agree with your point "if no one is excited enough or willing to use it in a way that would enhance their teaching, learning, assessment, infrastructure, or productivity, then the relative quality of such a technology is irrelevant and for naught." Sadly at our school, our tech coordinator spend a lot of time building an ipad cart. Teachers were interested in using them in their classrooms, but didn't know their capabilities, limitations, or how to use them in their class. Now the cart sits idle most of the time, as teachers choose older technologies they are familiar with. One problem I see with short term planning, is how much time will be spent planning since it will have to occur so often. While this should happen, I think it might be one of the deterrents.
ReplyDelete