What is Technology Use Planning?
The Influence of the National Educational Technology Plan (2010) on Technology Use Planning in American School Systems
What is it?
In the most basic sense, technology use planning calls for an assessment of current technology needs and a plan to meet those needs. The National Educational Technology Plan (2010) [NETP], a document crafted with the goal of integrating into the entire American school system many of the advanced technologies we use on a daily basis, will be a useful reference during the plan's design stages. In it the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology outlines various ways invested parties can make effective changes that will help schools prepare students for success with technology. It urges our educational system to be clear, collaborative, and consistent when endeavoring to transform education through technology adoption and to not lose focus on the need to develop critical, complex problem solving skills above all else. What is the Connection to Technology Use Planning?
The overarching goals of the plan are ambitious: raise the nation's college graduation rate by 20 percent and bridge the achievement gap to promote high school graduation. Raising the percentage of graduates in less than (at the time) 10 years would take an unprecedented organizational shift. However ambitious, the need still exists, and the plan offers many suggestions for effecting great change.
For one, the document suggests learning from other industries that have successfully integrated technology on a large scale, like business and entertainment, to expedite the process; and although such a decision will invite influence from those that may put their own interests (influence, profit) in front of those of our nation's students and educators, budget limitations will necessitate industry partnerships. In other words, one must be careful for what they wish for - if great change is desired, great change may come. It is up to educational technologists and other invested parties to clearly define limitations to what is needed and why, so as to most effectively participate in controlling the direction in which our American school system is headed.
For this reason, the NETP also serves as authoritative referential material that educational technologists, policy makers, and teachers alike can leverage when making decisions about how to best fit the needs of future students. Because the document calls for everything from improved data-driven assessment measures to increased technology training for educators to bridge the digital divide, its uses are manifold and should be woven into the fabric of any technology use plan to bolster its credibility.
Short-Term Planning
Technological developments can move rapidly, and with the amount of research and development funding poured into hardware and software innovation, the growth can at times seem exponential. Therefore, I agree that plans must incorporate an understanding of the rapid development and change that inevitably occurs. For example, See (1992) makes an excellent point that a long-term plan could tether by contract an organization or school to a form of technology that has grown outdated by the time it is adopted and delivered. Also, the financial feasibility of a long term plan may be impossible. With inconsistent yearly operating budgets, educational systems may need to focus on what is presently obtainable and use any success as leverage during future budget negotiations.
As a bit of an aside, I presume See (1992) unknowingly further edifies his claim that “Technology is changing so fast that it is almost impossible to plan what type of technology will be available for use five years from now” when he questions the massive expenditure of computer purchases for typing skill instruction; after all, he asks, “what happened to the old typewriters? Don’t they have a keyboard?” Five years later, typewriters had all but vanished from schools entirely.
Long-Term Planning
However, this short-sighted approach has its pitfalls (short term success may be only that - short term) and a strong technology use plan should consider what short-term success implies for long-term use planning. That is, incorporated into the technology use plan one should have a vision for the future that is constructed of short-term successes. Many issues, such as a low student-to-device ratio or dated technology, may be solved by a short-term plan, but what of the long-term needs of training for effective use and planned obsolescence? In many ways, periodically developing a short-term technology plan seems inadequate and unnecessarily limited. It would be like planning a trip abroad by developing an itinerary for and at each stop along the way with no idea where your final destination will be.
For this reason, the NETP also serves as authoritative referential material that educational technologists, policy makers, and teachers alike can leverage when making decisions about how to best fit the needs of future students. Because the document calls for everything from improved data-driven assessment measures to increased technology training for educators to bridge the digital divide, its uses are manifold and should be woven into the fabric of any technology use plan to bolster its credibility.
Expanding the Discussion: Implications of See's Developing Effective Technology Plans (1992)
In technology integration specialist John See’s Developing Effective Technology Plans (1992), he argues that technology use plans should be short, not long term. Although See substantiates his claim with relatively effective examples, it is not clear why a plan cannot incorporate both approaches.Short-Term Planning
Technological developments can move rapidly, and with the amount of research and development funding poured into hardware and software innovation, the growth can at times seem exponential. Therefore, I agree that plans must incorporate an understanding of the rapid development and change that inevitably occurs. For example, See (1992) makes an excellent point that a long-term plan could tether by contract an organization or school to a form of technology that has grown outdated by the time it is adopted and delivered. Also, the financial feasibility of a long term plan may be impossible. With inconsistent yearly operating budgets, educational systems may need to focus on what is presently obtainable and use any success as leverage during future budget negotiations.
As a bit of an aside, I presume See (1992) unknowingly further edifies his claim that “Technology is changing so fast that it is almost impossible to plan what type of technology will be available for use five years from now” when he questions the massive expenditure of computer purchases for typing skill instruction; after all, he asks, “what happened to the old typewriters? Don’t they have a keyboard?” Five years later, typewriters had all but vanished from schools entirely.
Long-Term Planning
However, this short-sighted approach has its pitfalls (short term success may be only that - short term) and a strong technology use plan should consider what short-term success implies for long-term use planning. That is, incorporated into the technology use plan one should have a vision for the future that is constructed of short-term successes. Many issues, such as a low student-to-device ratio or dated technology, may be solved by a short-term plan, but what of the long-term needs of training for effective use and planned obsolescence? In many ways, periodically developing a short-term technology plan seems inadequate and unnecessarily limited. It would be like planning a trip abroad by developing an itinerary for and at each stop along the way with no idea where your final destination will be.
A Focus on Application
See (1992) also argues "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology," and I agree that effective technology plans will focus on the outcomes rather than the tools used to facilitate the outcomes. Much like designing a lesson or unit plan, the developers of the technology use plan should take a backwards-design approach; that is, starting with what you want your students, staff, or administration to accomplish as a final task, such as an assessment or demonstration of mastery, and work backwards to design opportunities for them to develop the skills necessary for successfully completing the final task.
Personal Experience with Technology Use Planning
When it comes to personal experience with technology use planning, fortunately I have been on both the training/receiving and development sides. While working in media for a small engineering company, I was asked to participate in developing a technology needs-assessment for the company. The time had come to begin replacing equipment in the office - everything from computer hardware to website analytics software subscriptions - and I needed to weigh in on what changes needed to happen to reach goals that were set in the marketing and sales plan. I sat down with my team and we discussed what needed upgrades and why. Later I participated in writing a proposal to our team that would be assessed, considered, and finally incorporated into the plan, which would finally be brought to a team of investors at the next board meeting. During this experience as “developer” (in part), I felt empowered and as though my input was vitally appreciated.Interestingly, when I later transitioned into education as an English and Spanish instructor, my input was not solicited in the same way. (Naturally, the feasibility of discussing needs with the workforce of a small business versus an entire district is drastically different, and I can imagine a similar comparison might be drawn between a small business and a large corporation). For example, as a middle school Spanish teacher in a large district, I was only aware of the technology use plan by gleaning traces of it from the various required technology training seminars and installation of SmartBoards in our rooms. I imagine this was the product of trickle-down decision making that began with the administration, made its way to specialists and consultants, and ended in the classrooms. During this experience as “practitioner,” I felt less empowered than I had working with the engineering company, as my input was neither solicited or observably appreciated.
As a result of both experiences, I've come to understand that technology use planning is more than what is on paper. A plan should consider who is invested, how they will react, and how to promote ownership of the plan at all levels, from training to practice. How to promote adoption of new technology is a topic in and of itself (#workforcemotivation), so I'll leave that for another time, but it does merit mention and should certainly be considered when developing any plan that may face initial resistance.
Summary
Technology use planning is an important part of an entire systemic plan for overall improvement. Every player involved in the design and implementation should keep in mind not only what will be used to reach goals in the plan, but why. Technology use plans should focus on bringing about change in the short-term while not losing site of direction years down the road. Personal experience has shown me that each party invested in the plan must take ownership of it and feel as though their role and input are vital to its success if the plan has any chance at succeeding. As advanced technology increasingly moves into nearly every facet of modern society, the need for a comprehensive, thoughtful approach to its adoption has never been more important.
Resources
See, J. (1992). Developing Effective Technology Plans. The Computing Teacher, 19(18). http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010) Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, Washington, D.C., 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment