Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology Use Planning. 
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available. 


How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning? 
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.

I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.

The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.

The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.

It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.


Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not? 
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.



What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology? 
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all. 
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.


What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower!