Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Module3 project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
57
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Technology Plan Evaluation FRIT 7232 - Year 1 - Fall 2013 Laurie Bennett, Christopher Brist, Lisa Witteman September 22, 2013
  • 2. Module 3 Annotated Resources 1) Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Technology in our Schools Reference: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0C C4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.act.org%2Fresearch%2Fpolicymakers%2Fpdf%2F school_tech.pdf&ei=0FszUp7_BYPuqQGblYCYDQ&usg=AFQjCNEDSiPHWyR4wDG5g6eg GfcWDX1UjQ&sig2=iVqaxNqxFRMMvxSK7SSfug&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM Relevance: This article covers the importance of technology in education. It explains that a school system cannot just throw money or technology into it and expect results. It lays out the advantages of technology in education and spells out ways to use it to enhance the learning experience. It gives great advice on how to evaluate the technology being used and how to implement it to the best advantages. Technology is not a replacement for education, but rather a way to enhance the educational methods already in place. It also goes over ways that technology can help increase academic achievement and also close the academic gaps between different socioeconomic levels of the population. 2) Title: An Educator’s Guide to Evaluating the use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms Reference: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjA A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.au.af.mil%2Fau%2Fawc%2Fawcgate%2Fed-techguide%2 Fhandbook2.pdf&ei=uVwzUo-YBIK2qQHci4HQAQ&usg=AFQjCNFPdhLPlQ583B8-TeygE PpRxwNIEA&sig2=kFhkud_Ma-QMOInSiimMAA&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM Relevance: This article gives guidelines on how to evaluate a school’s technology plan. I contains suggestions of items that should be included in order to be considered an effective plan. 3) Title: District/School Technology Plan Template: Your Blueprint for Success Reference:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ve
  • 3. d=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scilearn.com%2Falldocs%2Fcp%2Fschool-di strict-technology-plan.pdf&ei=DV4zUo-XC8f3qQGzmIAo&usg=AFQjCNGhl68LTwk26IK OLXo_gpojVkdUhA&sig2=g2CW5Cqnv1YRTau74sKsRQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM Relevance: This article is actually a fill-in-the-blank template that a school system could use to begin creating their district’s technology plan. I lists all of the relevant basic components and even has a checklist at the end that allows the user to evaluate how complete the plan is after all the blanks are filled in. It contains suggestions on how to make it better or more complete, depending on where the shortcomings fall. 4) Title: Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report Reference: www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/finalreport.pdf Relevance: This report spells out the requirements of school systems to include in their technology plans in order to adhere to the No Child Left Behind Act of the US Dept of Ed in order for them to receive their federal funding for the program. 5) Title: Investigating the quality of the school technology needs assessment (STNA) 3.0: A validity and reliability study Reference: Educational Technology Research and Development. August 2010, Vol. 58, Issue 4, p353-376, 24p. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=73fd20a8-d5d1-4d14-b227- 3199b224ca24%40sessionmgr11&vid=4&hid=17 Relevance: This paper discusses the importance of schools and districts conducting a well planned needs assessment before designing or implementing technology plans. The School Technology Needs Assessment (STNA) is a free online tool that was developed by the Department of Education in North Carolina to help schools positively impact the educational environment. 6) Title: A Technology Plan That Works Reference: Educational Leadership, v68 n5 p56-59 Feb 2011. 4 pp.
  • 4. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=391629d3-c097-4194-bc0c-7 d9c44dee686%40sessionmgr14&vid=5&hid=17 Relevance: This article focuses on five lessons that school administrators should keep in mind whenever implementing new technologies. The article focus less on the technology and more on the people that will utilize the resources. These lessons could easily be expanded to the district level for technology planning, since one size does not fit all.. 7) Title: Making Technology Standards Work for You Reference:http://www.iste.org/docs/excerpts/MATEC3-excerpt.pdf Relevance: This ISTE paper was written for school leaders, on a variety of levels, as a guide for implementing and integrating technology. Administrators are given the resources to become effective technology leaders that inspire, facilitate, engage and advocate for their schools. 8) Title: Being Smart About Technology. Reference: Marcoux, E. (2010). Being Smart About Technology. Teacher Librarian, 37(4), 87-88 Relevance: In the reflective (2010) article, Marcoux discusses her eye-opening experiences at a ” technology in schools” seminar. She attended to attain insight on how school administrators and technology directors envisioned 21st century learning. She was surprised at the high interest in hardware and software and not the incorporation of technology for knowledge. They seemed clueless about their own districts technological atmosphere as it pertained to the current standards. They needed to understand the capacities of their technologies according to how they contribute to the curriculum in each school. Their understanding needed to be expanded beyond written goals and be mindful to include foresight in their plans. This article’s relevance to writing a technology plan is to look for quality not popular programs, listen to stakeholder opinions and be observant of the classroom needs and achievements. 9) Title: TECHNOLOGY PLANNING: DESIGNING THE DIRECTION TO GET THERE.
  • 5. Reference: Norton, S. (2013). Technology planning: Designing the direction to get there. Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 64-69. Relevance: In the 2013 article, Norton provides background information and influential governmental funding for technology integration. She points out that many technology plans either continue to exist with outdated funding information or have been eliminated. She proceeds to break down the essential components of a school technology plan, with a resounding theme that librarians become the live pulsed between the community and school wide stakeholders and the district technology departments. Her essential components of the school technology plan provides clear operational definitions to sharpen rubric criteria to assess technology plans. 10) Title: The Technology Facade. Reference: Tomel, L. A. (2007). The technology facade. American School Board Journal, 194(9), 44-49. Relevance:In the 2007 article, the author reports on the effectiveness of an author- designed 20 item questionnaire for school board members to analyze the current functioning of a district’s technology program. The questionnaire was very forward thinking for 2007. It offers poignant queries on the implementation of the districts costly programs. This survey could be a helpful resource for our group as we explore the vision of the district’s proposed utilization and implementation of instructional and informative technology Introduction As a group, we collaborated and researched several Georgia school district’s technology plans to evaluate for our paper. We selected the technology plan from Liberty County School System. The Liberty County School System is located in southeast Georgia. It is described as a small coastal school district, with 13 schools, and one central office. Liberty County’s Technology Plan is attached to their district’s public site. Its hyperlink was easily located on the Technology and Media Services
  • 6. Homepage. http://www.liberty.k12.ga.us/ourpages/auto/2013/4/9/50587699/LCSS%203yr% 20Tech%20Plan%2011-14.pdf Also located on the Technology and Media Services Homepage, is a public interactive sidebar. Each link is informative, resourceful, and includes a survey for participants to fill out after a technology in-service. These content links provide essential evidence that the school system technology plan is vested in providing accessible technology for all of their stakeholders. The Plan’s Outline and Time Period Range The Liberty County School System Technology Plan lists six headings; vision for the utilization of technology, current reality (the heart of the plan), communication and marketing, professional technology training, eighth grade technology literacy, and appendices. The headings locations are found on the plan’s table of contents. The plan covers a 3-year time period ranging from July 1, 2011-June 30, 2014 and was submitted on April 28, 2011. Elements of Technology Plan Rubric A description of each element and its corresponding criterion score are noted in the following rubric. Components 3 2 1 Score Executive Summary Identifies clearly and concisely for the reader the vision, mission, goals and Provides adequate And accurate information in Executive Executive summary is absent or incomplete. (Missing 2 or 1
  • 7. objectives, findings, issues, conclusions, and recommendations of the technology plan Summary. more components of information.) Identifies Contributors and Stakeholder groups Membership list has complete description of constituencies/ stakeholder groups. All areas are equally represented. Membership list is provided and describes constituencies represented. Membership is not listed or is inadequate to determine representation of stakeholder groups 3 Vision Vision is comprehensive and deals with learning outcomes, not just technology outcomes. Clearly and concisely states the district’s vision for how technology will be used to Vision provides adequate description of how technology will improve learning but instructional outcomes not fully addressed. Vision is not included or does not address learning outcomes 3
  • 8. enhance learning; indicates the benefits that will result from the use of technology by students, teachers, administrators or others. Mission Mission is focused on instructional outcomes and indicates clearly what the school or district will do to make its technology vision a reality; why the school or district wants to do this; and for whom the school or district is doing this. Mission addresses learning outcomes but provides limited information about what, why, and for whom the school or district is doing the plan Mission is missing or does not address instructional outcomes. 1 Goals The plan establishes clear goals and a realistic strategy Goals are mostly equipment based and loosely linked to Goals are absent or seem to be only equipment 3
  • 9. for using technology to improve education or library services. Goals clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By when? By how much? According to which instrument? improvement plans. based; are not measurable; are incomplete or difficult to understand Objectives Objectives are measurable and delineated from goals; they clearly define steps to be taken to achieve goals. They are clear and realistic. Provides most of the objectives. Some objectives may not be readily attainable or measurable. Objectives are absent or incomplete. They are difficult to understand, unrealistic, or appear unmeasurable 3 Needs Assessment The plan includes an assessment of the hardware, software, and other services that will be Technology has been assessed and analyzed, but may not include summaries of Needs assessment is absent or incomplete 3
  • 10. needed to improve education or library services. Identifies use by students and staff, and training received and desired. information from all elements in the technology surveys. Conclusions and Recommendation s Clearly identifies the most important needs and challenges confronting the school or district and recommends the projects and steps to be taken to achieve the vision. Conclusions are strong and relevant. Conclusions and recommendatio ns are adequately justified although the basis of some conclusions not entirely clear. Conclusions and recommendatio ns are missing or are not adequately justified based on the information gathered in planning process 1 Acceptable Use Policy Describes policies that are needed to ensure proper use of the technology Provides an adequate description of the most relevant Policy issues are absent, incomplete, or difficult to understand; 3
  • 11. resources. Includes well-written draft of Acceptable Use Policy. policy issues. Includes an adequate draft of Acceptable Use Policy. lack of Acceptable Use Policy draft Academic Goals Provides clear description of how technology is currently used in the learning environment and ways it will be used to achieve instructional outcomes; describes how technology will enhance curriculum and teaching and learning strategies Provides overview of the current and future use of technology in enhancing the teaching-learnin g process for students. Little detail on how technology will be integrated into learning and curriculum Technology and Learning statement absent or provides incomplete information on the current use or future role of technology in the school or district and how it will enhance learning 2 Existing Technology and Requirements for Implementing Provides clear and comprehensive description of the Provides general description of hardware, software Technology standards, requirements and models are 3
  • 12. Technology Upgrades capabilities of present hardware and learning environments. It identifies minimum standards and requirements for computer hardware, software, and connectivity; describes the types of learning environments that currently exist and those to be created by the plan and connectivity standards and requirements. missing, incomplete, or vague Professional Development Clearly describes current and needed technology competencies The plan has a professional development strategy to Provides a general overview of current and needed technology competencies. Describes a few strategies and Staff Development is absent or provides only minimal information on current and needed technology 3
  • 13. ensure that staff knows how to use the new technologies to improve education or library services. recommendatio ns for incentives and resources. competencies Technical Support Provides clear and comprehensive requirements and plans for services needed to support technology use Provides adequate but not comprehensive description of technical support requirements and services Technology support is absent or provides vague or little information on technical support requirements 3 Projects and Timelines Provides a prioritized list of major technology plan projects, tasks and timelines. Projects a timeline for completion of projects, such as the full Provides most, but not all, of the project and timelines information. Appears to be generally consistent with plan goals. Projects or timelines missing; provides vague or little information on projects or timelines; projects do not appear relevant to plan goals or 2
  • 14. integration of new technology with existing technology. Timelines are realistic and consistent with plan goals and objectives. unrealistic Budget The plan provides for a sufficient budget summary estimate to acquire and maintain the hardware, software, professional development, and how it will be distributed among schools for equitable access. Identifies possible alternative funding resources. Provides most, but not all, of the budget estimate information. Appears to be generally consistent with plan goals. Budgets missing or estimates appear incongruent with plan or unrealistic 3
  • 15. Methods of Evaluation The plan includes an evaluation process that enables the school or library to monitor progress toward the specified goals and make mid-course corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. Evaluation process is broad or does not allow mid-course corrections as needed. There is no evaluation process included or the process does not match the goals and objectives of the plan 3 Accessibility of Technology Resources The plan will address how to make technology accessible to all students, including those with disabilities or limited English proficiency The plan addresses how to make technology accessible to some students with disabilities The plan does not address accessibility for any students with disabilities or limited English proficiency 3 Timely Submission The plan was submitted on time n/a The plan was not submitted on time. 3
  • 16. Total Score 46/54 Recommendations to improve this plan Some of the categories received less than the maximum score and should be addressed to improve this technology plan. Here are suggestions for changes in each category that need improvement: Executive Summary - Score 1 out of 3 Liberty County’s Technology Plan omitted an Executive Summary. Much of the pertinent “at a glance” information found in an Executive Summary was scattered throughout the Plan (i.e., The Plan’s vision and mission statement were located in the Vision Summary, goals and objectives were found in multiple places). The Executive Summary is much like an abstract to an intense research paper. Some readers are not technology savvy and look for reader friendly short statements. Omitting this crucial piece of writing can have a negative effect on stakeholders and committee members. Instead of focusing on the highlights of the Plan, everyone is focusing on going through multiple pages seeking information that impacts them. Meanwhile, important areas of the Plan that could be validated our discussed are being lost due to the readers disengagement. MISSION: Score 1 out of 3
  • 17. The mission should focus on instructional outcomes and how the district will turn its vision into a reality. It should also explain why and for whom the technology plan has been created. This technology plan did not contain any of these elements and received a score of 1 in the rubric. Conclusions and Recommendations - Score 1 out of 3 While the plan illustrates how the district will implement new technologies, it is lacking a definitive source that explains the reasoning behind their decisions. A needs assessment would help to determine the short falls of the district and provide a guide for recommendations. Academic Goals – Score 2 out of 3 Through our research, we agreed that Technology Plans were lacking alignment with the common core by not addressing specific and descriptive academic goals. We tested our theory by incorporating Academic Goals in our rubric with the Plan. After we reviewed the Plan, we collaborated and agreed that the Plan discussed how technology is currently utilized in the learning environment and what training the educators would receive, it lacked description and clarity on how the Plan would improve student achievement, enhance strategies and utilize the common core curriculum. Projects and Timelines - Score 2 out of 3 The district’s technology goals and objectives are well defined. However, many of the
  • 18. goals lack sufficient timetables for execution. Implementing the technology plan would be more effective for stakeholders if they were given specific expectations of due dates. Conclusion The technology plan scored 46 out of a possible 54 points. This equates to 85%, which is a good assessment with room for improvement. The major areas where the plan fell short were in setting specific goals and timelines for meeting those goals. We did not get a clear indication of where the plan would take the district and they did not set specific benchmarks for helping them set a pace for the overall time frame of the plan. A few more specific academic goals along with a proper timeline to follow those goals would have increased the score (and in turn the effectiveness) of this technology plan.