Too Many Plans!

While reading all the different technology plans at the school, district, state, and national level (lions, tigers, bears, o my!) I really started to think about what I wanted and what the “world” wants.  At first, it was a very daunting task with too many words to even comprehend.  After I found my groove of scanning for key words and then copying/paste into a document so I could highlight, I felt better.  I might be a wordy blogger, but words can be scary.  To start at the top, the national plan had key phrases that stood out to me like “for all content areas,” “to reach all learners anytime and anywhere,” and “provide more options for all learners at all levels.”  It is important to keep the learner in the forefront of the plan and not to lose them within the cool new toy obsessions.  The end goal is to help the learner no matter how that occurs (besides bodily harm of course).  When reading the state technology plan, I felt it was very similar to the national plan.  They both had similar themes, but the word choices made them different.  One thing that stood out to me with the state plan was the goal that focuses on teacher proficiency with technology.  How is the learner supposed to improve by using technology incorporated into the standards if the teachers do not know how to turn on their computer?  Teacher proficiency plays a huge role in the integration of technology.  I know certain teachers that do not understand how to delete emails, so how are they going to survive if we do not get them up to par?  Sink and swim is not the right mentality right now when education needs good teachers who just might not be tech savvy yet.  

I liked the breakdown of the national plan compared to the state/district plan.  The breakdown of learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity is very concise and accurate.  Everything seems to fit nicely into those categories.  It also helps lead my thinking into those categories instead of where it was, focused on the learner.  Technology plans cannot be too narrow where they only fit into the triangle hole.  Technology plans need to touch all aspects of education and school life so it can fit into multiple holes and cover all the possible bases. 

While looking at the district plan, it is obvious that it is narrower than the national and state plan.  The wording is very different from the other plans as well.  The district plan uses terms like “increase student engagement,” which was not as prominent in the state or national plans.  I know that all of the plans mentioned something similar to this, but it only really stuck out to me in the district plan: Increase cyber citizenship awareness for students and staff when using the Internet.  Being in the 8th grade and teaching Science, I have never really encountered anyone who talks about this issue.  I am making a huge inference when saying I assume that this is tackled at the elementary level or in the computer Connections class the students take.  However, I am sure that this standard cannot be over taught/stressed.  It should play a more prominent apart of any class that does anything on the Internet.  My classes have to sign a plagiarism contract going, which covers basic Internet rules and regulations.  However, I am sure my students could use more of a reminder and discussion every time we use a computer. 

 

The different technology plans, ranging from the National level to the district level, has helped me identify what is important to me and what is important to the experts. I find it important for technology to be used by a staff of teachers who are knowledgeable and properly trained.  If the work force is not trained, then they will not properly do the job that is expected of them.  Teachers are being told to be highly qualified in content subjects so they can effectively teach, so why can they not be expected to be highly qualified in technology?  A magic wand cannot be waved and everyone knows what they are doing.  It will take dedication, hard work, and support from both the teachers and the administration to create a technology heavy environment.  Another important factor for technology in education is using the technology available and not dreaming of the technology of the future.  Wasting time training and planning for technology that the school MIGHT find money for is not an effective use of time.  Training and planning for what IS available and in the building is a more effective use of time and resources.  You do not need every piece of technology out there when you do not use what you currently have.  It works the same for kids at Christmas time…they see all the new toys on TV, but they do not play with the toys they currently have!!!  We are in a budget crisis, so no more new toys! Fix the old ones and pretend they are new.

Word Count: 3,728. Got to love wordiness on technology in professional development!

Professional learning for educators have always had mix reviews and they are sometimes effective, but sadly, most of the time a waste of breath.  Results-driven education has influenced technology-related professional learning towards changing how teachers use technology, moving more towards effective technology usage instead of only using technology for Word or PowerPoint. The systems approach to organizational management has influenced technology-related professional learning by uniting the teachers within the district and not just within the school. Constructivist views have influenced technology-related professional learning by having the students actively participate in learning with building their own meanings instead of the teacher giving them the information by opening up their brains and dumping it in. 

Technology in schools does not always align with the five constructivist learning concepts.  I most frequently see the first concept (teachers help students build knowledge while letting them apply it to the real world through their creativity).  I know that usually when I hear of teachers using technology, it is with projects that allow students branch out from the concepts learned in class.  I have not seen it happen often, but when I have, the students have been engaged and the technology put in their hands helps them to reach their level of engagement.  I have also seen technology help with concept 2 (instructional strategies and content co-mingling).  While wandering the halls, I have seen teachers use technology to help students learn the material by using different delivery mediums.  They use technology to make notes interactive by hyperlinking to different websites and videos to help keep the students’ interest.  The variety of resources by using technology helps to differentiate the lessons and hit on all ways to learning to help the students.  I also have seen concept 4 (social interactions) with technology because students use technology to create their group projects.  This is seen very seldom, but it has been seen enough to count it in my mind.  The constructivist concepts I see the least of are concepts 3 and 5 (exploring concepts instead of delivering every detail and teacher moves towards guide and presenter).  Most teachers do not embrace these concepts, because they feel like it is too much work or they do not want to see the students fail so much before they succeed…it is too much on the teacher’s part to wait for the success.  It is sad that no one wants to embrace these concepts, with or without technology, because it can really cement the concepts in the students’ brains.  A way to get teachers to embrace all five concepts (instead of just a small population) is to create professional learning environments where teachers see usable examples of the five concepts in action.  You can lecture a teacher until you are blue in the face, but teachers need to be shown from the beginning to the end on how to do it and how to do it successful.  Teachers do not want to fail and make a fool of themselves in front of the students. However, students make mistakes and so do teachers, so this should not be a motivating factor.  By showing teachers concrete examples and encouraging them by helping them will get more of the constructivist learning concepts in the classroom, which can also lead more technology into the classroom!

I agree that technology has not made teachers progress from direct instruction, but has only encouraged it more.  It is easy to let the textbook read itself with the help of technology.

Some weaknesses that exist in staff development is that they are not always supportive of school goals.  Teachers sit in these workshops and learn one topic but never again is it addressed or checked on. Staff development should not be a onetime event where the only time you hear about is that one day and never again is it discussed.  Staff development should support that school’s goals and then the skill learned should be checked on throughout implementation.  Teachers are just like students: seeing something one time is not enough to actually learn it and apply it.

The descriptors of constructivist teachers are seen about as often as the constructivist learner concepts...aka, they can be seen in schools but usually only by the same teachers.  The descriptors I have seen the most (as I wander the hallways, which I am prone to do) allow students to explore their interests with differentiated projects and interactive websites that bring in real world ties. I see these more in projects (just like the constructivist learning concepts), but the other descriptors are hard to find.  I have not seen them in my wandering, but that does not mean other teachers are not using them.  I wish more teachers used open-ended questioning, which could tie very well with technology by create engaging webquests that also pose higher order questions to the students.  I think it would be very easy to encourage dialogue with the students using technology by creating websites or educational social websites that allows students to post questions and help each other.  I have always found that if I can help someone else with a concept, it only further sticks into my memory.  Open dialogue seems very important to growing concepts in the correct way.  Once again, showing teachers workable examples so they can easily recreate them is the best way to use professional learning time.  Teachers are scared of new technology and new ways of thinking, so once they see that it is doable, they are more likely to be willing to at least try it.  This is how my school got teachers to build websites.  They showed off different examples of previously made websites and made sure to pick a variety, so teachers could find one type of website they related to and then recreate it.  Just throwing information at teachers and demanding it be accomplished will get people nowhere and only keep them stuck in the Stone Age!

I found the example of model tech-related professional learning program very interesting for many different reasons. I was first very excited and wanted to be a part of it!  I would love to go through something just like that to learn, which would only help with my teaching, which in term helps my students.  Once my first reaction settled down, I realized that not many teachers would appreciate this.  They would view it as a waste of time and it would take away from other things they could do.  If they wanted to sign up for a professional development then they would have, but a school professional development?  Heck no!  I really thought the active participation would be extremely helpful because it gives the teachers a chance to feel how the students feel.  It also gives the principal the opportunity to experience the teacher side and then can later give feedback and comments on how to do constructivist teaching with technology when the teachers begin working through it.  I am not sure there is anything I would change about this professional learning program.  I feel like it is everything I would want, but I am not everyone.    I could see some teachers having a problem with how involved it is.  They do not want to have to do so much homework, but that is what makes it learning.  There are always going to be naysayers in the world, so I would keep the program the same because I feel it is effective the way it is. 

I agree whole-heartedly with the closing remarks in Chapter 5.  Technology is very similar to the Emperor’s New Clothes!  People are always wanting to stay at the forefront of the technology push, never really looking at what the technology is or caring.  It does not matter if you have the best, but how you use it and what the students get out of it.  Yes, it would be nice if every classroom had an i-pad, but how would that help them?  It would not because teachers would not actually utilize its potential, so the newest may not be something that needs to be invested in.  It will take one person to point out the flaws of the eager technology beavers before some schools put a stop to over-purchasing and focus on using the technology they already have.

With any change in school, there are always different roles the teachers play.  Trail blazers are teachers who are gung-ho for new ideas and changes and want to spearhead the charge for reform.  Trail blazers can be helpful with getting other teachers to try new things, like using new technology in their classrooms.  Resisters are teachers who are complacent.  They like the way things are and just want to be left alone and do their own thing.  However, saboteurs are teachers who do not want to change, but they are vocal about it and try to get others (like resistors) to join them in the destruction of the new ideas.  Saboteurs are very dangerous people but should not be ignored!  Resisters and saboteurs are most likely going to rear their negative heads right when the change is going to take place.  They lay in wait until they realize that the rumors are true and technology changes (or any changes) are ready to take the school by storm.  I find that one of the reasons resisters and saboteurs come out from hiding and actually resist/sabotage is the loss of control.  I know that I like to feel like I am in charge of my classroom, so long as I follow certain rules.  When those rules are changed after I get comfortable, it takes me awhile to accept that I really do not have control, but only a sense of it.  It is important to remind teachers that they still have control and can make the decisions within their classrooms, but they just need to include one more thing.  No one is asking them to be robots and all be alike.  It is only one new idea to try.  There is no reason to change everything that makes the teachers’ teaching special and unique.  Another reason I found interesting was that teachers do not feel confident in their ability to use the new technology or be able to keep with the changes.  I have had this conversation with other teachers before where they feel like they cannot keep up with technology and they are starting to feel old and useless.  This is a horrible feeling to have: a feeling of worthlessness!  The change should be introduced with lots of support and reassurances.  Just telling people about the change and leaving them to drown is going to produce more resisters and saboteurs!  Even the most confident person needs to be reassured once in a while that they are special and they will not be abandoned during the change.  Everyone will make it through the change and it will be successful! There are numerous ways to handle resisters and saboteurs.  One way is to include them in the planning process.  If the resisters and saboteurs are a part of the plan to introduce change, then their concerns will be addressed in a small group setting instead of in a gossip setting.  Being able to troubleshoot their issues before the school gets those issues is going to help create a smooth transition.  Another way to deal with the resisters and saboteurs is to make sure to talk about how technology can help with the curriculum and standards based instruction.  This will help with getting teachers to see that it is not meant to push them out of their jobs, but to help with their jobs.  Appropriate training to help with the transition is needed and not just a 30-minute session and then throw the teachers to the technology change wolves.  Teachers need to feel confident and needed, so extensive training with question and answering sessions will help with the transition, which will help to eliminate resisters and saboteurs. 

One of the current weaknesses in evaluating technology use in the classroom is looking at how much technology classrooms have instead of focusing on how it is used.  Having a smartboard is not effective use of technology, but having students come up to the smartboard to manipulate the text and images helps with the curriculum and standards, which creates effective technology.  Without the backing of standards, technology is pointless in the classroom…it only serves as a way to not help the students. 

Some indicators of successful technology implementation are looking at the role of the teacher.  The teacher should be learning along with the students while simultaneously guiding and facilitating them through the technology instead of just telling them what to do.  Another indicator is to look at student roles, making sure they are exploring the technology instead of following a step-by-step instruction sheet.  Having students use technology to increase their knowledge instead of using for repetition of the knowledge previously learned is another indicator to see if technology is being used effectively.  Technology should enhance and draw in students and teachers instead of boring them. 

In my school, technology rides the educator most of the time.  When hearing people talk, they only discuss that they use technology.  I have rarely heard about how the technology is used.  In order for technology to be successful and effective, the teachers need to get the reigns over technology and use it with the standards.  Letting technology ride all over the lesson will only result in disaster.  Technology should only be allowed in the standards/curriculum pasture so it is does well and helps with the students’ learning.

It is important to both manage and lead technology programs because management and leadership go hand-in-hand.  If manage and leading are separated, then it will result in something being left out, because both managing and leading have their specialties. If one is overlooked, then something will be missing and the program will fall into failure.  However, there are some overlapping specialties for both managing and leading, so it is not hard to combine the two and create an effective technology program.  Leading a technology program is not different from leading a science program, because they both require management and leadership to succeed.  A successful science program requires a heavy focus on the standards, an attainable goal, and a variety of resources.  A technology program requires the same things to be successful.  A technology program needs to focus on the classroom standards as well as the technology standards, needs an attainable goal, and requires a variety of resources.  People should not view technology as a foreign substance that needs to be handled with gloves.  It is the same as any other program trying to get its feet off the ground and should be treated the same.  No more technology segregation! Making sure to tie in instructional goals to content area goals is very important to sustaining an effective technology program.  If the technology goal is not associated with the content area goals, then it is an ineffective program.  The reason students go to school is to receive an education that is run with state standards that every student must master.  The technology program should be helping with these standards or the program will not survive very long.  School funding is partially based on student performance on standardized tests, so if the test results do not improve with the technology, the funding for technology could be cut.  To create and keep a successful technology program, the goals of the school must be kept in mind or the technology program will fade away.

It is important that school leadership must absorb technology leadership, so that all the goals are related and nothing is left out.  Leading a school and leading the school’s technology will only allow for one of them to slip through the cracks, so they must be as one so both goals are reached and succeeded. To move past “in-group” and “out-groups” and get everyone on the same wavelength for technology, the technology facilitator/principal needs to be even more active and participate in the technology change.  He/she should not just introduce it and then hide, hoping everyone is coping well.  He/she should go out into the school, offer suggestions, and see successful lessons implemented.  Helping the staff and working through the bugs with the teachers individually will help to create a cohesive and open environment where the teachers who are good with technology and the teachers who are not good with technology can both flourish, thus resulting in a school with effective technology implementation.

With the fast pace of changing technology and schools trying to keep up creates new demands on teachers that can be hard to deal with.  It is impossible to expect teachers to keep up with changing standards and student issues as well as changing technology.  Technology leaders need to make sure they implement effective staff development and they need to support their teachers instead of leaving them to fend off the technology wolves.  Helping the teachers keep up with the change and providing workshops that can actually help them instead of boring them will help ease the pressure of constantly changing.  Sadly, teachers do not necessarily have the time or stamina to keep up with the latest and greatest technology, but the school should help ease the pressure off the teachers. 

With technology leadership, it can go only two ways: effective or ineffective.  Effective technology leadership helps teachers create engaging classrooms.  Ineffective technology leaderships helps teachers create traditional classrooms, where drill and practice is at the top of the priority list.  Technology is supposed to lead us in new directions with new ideas and activities.  Sadly, technology can lead us in the same direction with the same boring activities.  If the technology leader pushes the new and engaging and tries to dissuade the old and done-before, then the technology should be effectively used.  It is possible to pay tons of money and only have the technology bring us further back to the “old” ways of teaching.  Just purchasing the technology is not enough to ensure an effective use of the technology.  It is how the technology is presented and explained by the technology leader that can make the big decision: effective or ineffective.

The problem I worry about the most when it comes to technology implementation in schools is technology will not be used effectively.  With the state of the economy and schools now being hit with furlough days and smaller budgets, it makes me worry that the technology push will fail because the technology is not being used correctly.  Schools will purchase technology and it will not help them increase test scores or create engaging environments.  If that happens, then it will be harder to get more money for more technology so schools will just stop supporting new and effective technology based on inappropriately supported technology.  To continue to the financial backing of technology, it must be used to support the standards and not to support the old ways that do not actually require technology to teach. 

The problem my school’s improvement plan focuses on is to improve student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science.  To include technology in a new statement could be: How can technology help improve student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science?

Where does my school want to go? They want to increase standardized test scores in reading, mathematics, and science, moving from level 2’s to level 3’s on the CRCT. How will my school get there?  Technology will be used to differentiate instruction utilizing the personal response system and interactive websites to reach all types of learners.  How will my school know when they get there?  When the CRCT results come in and an increase in level 2’s to 3’s compared with previous years will be how my school knows they reached their goal.  A significant percentage increase will be looked at (more than 4% increase). 

I did find the Texas example helpful because I could slowly walk through my school’s goals while also walking through the Texas goals.  I am still not 100% confident in the planning process, but I feel much better than before I read this chapter.  It is a daunting task to accomplish and I just need to breathe and use the resources provided to move slowly through. 

The driving forces that exist at my school revolve around the technology enthusiast who sees technology as a tool to increase student comprehension instead of a tool that is just present in the school.  The restraining forces would be the teachers who like how they teach and see no need to change.  They like their routine and only do the same things every year.  There is no deviating from the pre-set plan.  It would be hard to increase student achievement scores by using technology when some teachers say they only teach 2 days a week and that would make them have to teach more than that. Forming a task force with a mix of resistors and enthusiasts would help to bring the two groups together.  However, I would also want to implement surveys across the school to get the feeling for everyone’s comfort level so appropriate professional learning programs can be set up.  Having the resistors help with the professional learning should help change some of their minds and show them the benefits. However, not every teacher will be sold on the changes, but it could at least help lead more teachers to technology based teaching with an emphasis on standards.

I liked that Texas did their goal setting before the SWOT.  It allowed them to see what they really wanted without having to worry about the downsides.  Getting to the heart of the school’s wants and needs can be very helpful when setting up the school’s plan.  However, without first setting up the SWOT, the planners will not be ready for the naysayers and the saboteurs.  Being prepared is the Boy Scout’s motto and it should also be adopted by technology improvement planners.  Being able to counterattack the saboteurs will help to keep them in check and less likely to end up with a dead plan.  If the goals are set first, then the planners need to keep SWOT in the backs of their minds so they are not ambushed and do not survive the first attack.