An old proverb says that, “A vision without a plan is just a dream, a plan without a vision is just drudgery, but a vision with a plan…” Perhaps having a plan for technology is unlikely to change the world, but it is certainly as important for effectively integrating technology into schools as the support of a strong leader. Without a sound plan, the necessary resources to carry out this plan, and an evaluation of whether or not the plan is working, the vision is merely wishful thinking, despite the initial good intentions. Perhaps this is what the state of Kentucky had in mind when they became the first state in the union to fully fund a comprehensive technology plan, or why in 1994 state legislators in Ohio required every district to develop a technology plan a prerequisite to participation in a statewide technology initiative (Milken Exchange, 1998).
Among the U.S. Department of Education’s suggestions and guidelines for helping technology decision makers assess the use and effects of technology in schools is the key question, “Is there a technology plan?” The authors contend that, “a plan for technology can maximize the potential of technological innovations while helping to overcome the challenges of implementation” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 11). Components of an effective technology plan frequently cited in the literature include involvement of all stakeholders in the development to promote buy-in and support; appropriate funding and budgeting; and ongoing assessment and evaluation of the plan (Barnett, 2001; Anderson, 1996; Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Milken Exchange, 1998; ISTE, 2002; Roblyer, 2004; Public Schools of North Carolina, 2005).
There is evidence among the research that supports the importance of each of these components. Baylor and Ritchie (2002) examined technology plans as well as additional data sources and found that a teacher’s openness to change, as measured from the administrator’s perspective by the whether or not the technology use plan promoted instructional innovation through technology, was found to be predictor classroom technology integration. Based on three separate studies related to technology planning, Cradler and Bridgforth (2002) concluded that the planning process was an important factor in the success of technology projects. Camp (2007) studied a North Carolina elementary school recognized for exemplary technology use and found that it had incorporated their technology plan, Title I plan, Crisis Plan and School Improvement Plan into a single integrated plan. The researcher credited the collaborative development, implementation and continuous monitoring of this plan to be a factor in the school’s successful implementation of their IMPACT grant and resulted in systematic change. In Illinois, evaluators of the state’s use and impact of technology in public schools found that while only half of the schools had developed a technology plan, case studies revealed that the presence of a technology plan was one of the effective strategies adopted by high usage schools for maximizing the capacity for teachers and student to take advantage of the available technologies (Silverstein, Fretchling, & Miyaoka, 2000).
The absence of of any one of these components can result in an additional barrier to technology use. A study of factors associated with the use of computers in K-4 classrooms by Robinette (2001) found that, although the school system studied had made great efforts in providing access to technology resources, technology was used infrequently and in ways that did not meet full potential of the technology systems in place. Based upon the findings, the researcher recommended not only the development of a system-wide vision for technology use in the classroom, but emphasized the importance for the district of developing detailed plan and timeline to achieve their desired vision that included both an ongoing formative and summative evaluation process. A case study of three urban elementary schools revealed that although a program initially funded through a PT3 grant had brought in technology resources such as equipment, infrastructure, and support staff, teachers and leaders within one of the schools were concerned that financial cutbacks and budgetary constraints would hinder future projects, continuing professional development, and the development of a long-term plan (Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005). Robinson (2003) compared four elementary schools’ barriers to technology integration and found that two of theses schools were successful at overcoming barriers to technology integration due in part to the long range planning during the reform process.
Byrom and Bingham (2001) noticed that some of the same problems occurred at several schools as they were developing their technology plan. One was “a tendency for one individual or a few people to write the plan, a practice that flies in the face of the notion of stakeholder buy-in and community involvement” and the other was that “most plans lack a component for evaluating the success and effectiveness of the program” (p. 6). In schools where teachers and stakeholders were involved in the planning process, it was found that there was indeed a greater commitment to the implementation of the plan and was supported by the teachers (Camp, 2007), and vice versa (Robinson, 2003). According to Cradler (2002), failing to include teachers in the planning process often resulted in teachers failing to use the technology skills learned during professional development activities. Without planning the proper budget or funding, a barrier to technology use cited by teachers (CDW-G, 2006), creating a long term, sustainable plan is difficult, a conclusion also reached by the Benton Foundation (2003) in a report on sustaining technology investments made by schools. Finally, continuous monitoring and evaluation of the plan ensured that schools not only implement the plan, but that the plan is working and adjustments to the plan are made when problems arrive.
In summary, having a long term plan for technology that has been developed through the collaboration of stakeholders helps to ensure that organized action is taken to achieve the schools vision for technology. Ensuring proper funding and budgeting ensures that the resources are there so the plans goals and objectives can be met. Lastly, monitoring and evaluation of the plan ensures that plan is effective.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors faciliatate teacher skill, teacher morale, and percieved student learning in technology-using classrooms. Computers in Education , 39 (4), 395-414.
Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors Influencing the Effective Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning: Lesson Learned. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from South East Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium: http://www.seirtec.org/publications/lessons.pdf
Camp, J. S. (2007). Touching tomorrow with technology: A case study of the impact of effective school leadership on an exemplary technology integration initiative. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2007) . ProQuest Disseration and Theses database.
Milken Exchange. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions for gauging progress. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Milken Family Foundation: http://www.milkenexchange.org/policy/sevendimensions.pdf
Public Schools of North Carolina. (2005). IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina media and technology programs. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from NCWiseOwl: http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Impact/docs/IMPACTrev1.31.08.pdf
Robinette, J. (2001). The factors associated with the use of computers in the K-4 classrooms of the Maryville city school system. (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State Univeristy, 2001). Retrieved January 29, 2007, from ProQuest Database.
Robinson, L. K. (2003). Diffusion of educational technology and education reform (Robinson, Washington State University, 2003). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from Washington State University Research Exchange: http://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2376/92/1/l_robinson_020403.pdf
Silverstein, G., Fretchling, J., & Miyaoka, A. (2000, June). Evaluation of the use of technology in Illinois public schools. Retrieved 23 2008, Februrary, from Illinois State Board of Education: http://www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/technology_exec_summary.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, November). Technology is schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from National Center for Education Statistics.
No comments:
Post a Comment