More Reading...and look! I got less WORDY!

While doing the reading for this week’s blog, the author refers to the theme of the book stating that technology should focus on pedagogy instead of the technology by itself. If pedagogy is not taken into account, then buying and finding all the technology means nothing. The technology must be incorporated into teachers’ beliefs so they will want to use it. I agree with this, because if a teacher believes in project based learning and the school invests its money in drill/practice software, that particular teacher will not use it and the software will go to waste. For teachers to want to use new technology, it must mesh with their teaching styles. To make sure this happens, the principal and technology specialist must work together. The principal should be involved in the decisions, testing out the technology and troubleshooting any foreseen problems. The principal must keep teaching strategies and student learning in mind throughout the entire process or the technology program will not be successful. If the technology will not help the students, then there is no point in investing in it. The technology specialist should work with the principal, but the technology specialist also needs to be the liaison between the technology and the teachers. The technology specialist needs to try to dissuade the negative trends in their schools, by encouraging and helping teachers use technology with the standards, but that also incorporates each teacher’s teaching style and belief.

Digital divides exist in education. This is worrisome to educators. A “digital divide” refers to equal access to technology for all students. For example, there should be computers in all schools, no matter if they are urban or rural schools. Moving past the accessibility of technology, a digital divide could exist between low socio-economic and high socio-economic schools, gender, ethnicity, or general education students and special education students. There could be a digital divide between any sub-groups of students, because a digital divide can also refer to how the technology is being used. If low socio-economic students use technology for drill and practice and high socio-economic students use technology for research and high order thinking skills, then that creates a digital divide between them. A digital divide could also exist between teachers in the same school. One teacher could have an interactive whiteboard, projector, and a set of clickers and the teacher uses them daily to teach. Next door, another teacher would only have an overhead projector used to give notes and that is the only technology available to that particular teacher. This would create a digital divide between the teachers and then creating a digital divide between the teachers’ students. Digital divides do not help the education system because it only makes education more divided and creates gaps in students’ general knowledge depending on where they went to school and whose class they were in.

Technology programs can fail at any time, but it is important to learn from others’ mistakes so the next plan can be a success! One reason technology plans fail is because of appropriate leadership. A leader should listen to everyone’s ideas and be a part of the planning process. A leader should not make all the decisions by him/her and a leader should not be so hands off that he/she can never be found. I believe appropriate leadership starts with listening and taking an active part in the process. Another reason that technology plans fail is due to lack of staff development. Teachers need to understand the technology they are expected to use and not just “click this and then that.” I believe sudden changes also encourage plans to fail. When someone makes a decision, pushes it on to an entire school population and the changes must sudden and drastic, it is hard to achieve the goal and there be lots of resistance. Teachers like the autonomy they have in their classrooms. When they must suddenly give up their ways, it creates negativity and resistance. If it is a slow change, it is easier to butter up the teachers, which results in better attitudes and better results. I believe that for a successful technology plan, the planner needs to first start slowly (no drastic changes), then have appropriate leadership (not too authoritative, not too hands off, but just right), and develop effective teacher training. A technology plan does not have to be perfect the first time around, but learning from mistakes someone else already did will help to start the plan on the right path.

I do not have experience with technology planning, but my school does have one. It was constructed with a team of teachers, administrators, and the school technology support person. It consists of expanding the schools use of interactive whiteboards and PRS clickers in instruction. The plan also states the want to increase the number of teachers with Webpages. The final part is to explore new technology for both the teachers and the students. Based on the readings so far, this is not a very effective plan since it only discusses using the technology and not how the technology should be used to support the standards.

I do believe that a school-level technology plan is necessary for success because even if there is a district level plan, a school plan can more easily assess the needs of the students through the needs of the teachers. It is important that the teachers have a say in the technology plan based on their needs and a county plan may not always consider their goals. Cheryl Lemke’s quote about not having two plans, but a school improvement plan with a technology plan incorporated really made me think. I understand that technology should help schools improve, so technology should be a part of the school improvement plan. However, I still feel that a separate technology plan can also benefit the school and the teachers. If technology is incorporated in both the school improvement plan and in a separate technology plan, then the likelihood that one of them will work and will find its way to the teachers’ hands is higher. I know that I have never seen my school’s school improvement plan, but I have seen the technology plan (by coincidence though). Without two separate documents, I would know nothing about my school’s goal and wants for technology in the classroom. If the technology plan is integrated into the school improvement plan, some challenges might occur.

However, many pitfalls can occur when creating a technology plan. In order to avoid these pitfalls, the planners need to be aware of the pitfalls and how to counteract/prevent them. Creating a technology plan that is full of technology jargon is only going to prevent teachers from reading it because of the complicated wording, which results in a failure to implement. The plan should also be simple in the structure of the plan because teachers are less likely to back something if it is tedious and could jeopardize the students’ learning and success on standardized tests. A well laid-out technology plan that is going to take five years is not appropriate. Setting small goals that focus on how to use the technology is better because the teachers can see the finish line. Using technology is great, but that should not be a goal. How it is used is better because technology should enhance learning and not just be used because it was purchased. Another pitfall to be aware of would be teacher morale. Teachers need to have a say in the plan and be willing to commit to it. Creating open planning meetings or surveying the faculty for their input and ideas will help with teachers wanting to implement the plan, which will result in better data and outcomes. To successfully create a technology plan, the planners need to be aware of the previously identified pitfalls and any surprise pitfalls lurking in the shadows.