Tech Plans, Tech Plans...and more Tech Plans!

Similarities:

The goals for connecting technology to education and teaching in a way that is best for the students.

We need to be able to adapt to an ever-changing world and this begins in our schools.

All students and teachers should have equal access to 21^st Century learning.

There needs to be adequate support for teachers with tools and training.

The desire to prepare life-long learners.

The state and national plans used more statistics to base information of what is needed in regards to improving technology in schools.

Diagnose learning problems and provide effective and efficient learning methods of teaching and learning.

The national and state plans mention more about stakeholders and their influence on technology planning.

All agree that engaged learning and support is key.

Plans all areas of improvement...software, teacher support, community involvement, vision, goals, future planning and how we know we have achieved our goals.

Differences:

The national plan mentions education k-16 instead of just k-12. The national plan seems to have more of an emphasis on the future not only in education, but in life and the workforce. The national plan also mentions that education can learn from the business world. The national plan parallels technology in life outside of school with technology in life in schools. Students use technology more outside of school and we need to find a way to bring that technology into education for engaged learning.

I like how in the state plan, there is a section that mentions the role of everyone involved. There is a diagram that shows how everyone needs to be involved for the technology integration plan to be effective. Support needs to come from the system, the educator and administration. I also like how the state plan stated how to correctly implement technology and why is it important for our students future.

I like how the national plan looks at the whole picture and sees the need for technology growth and implementation not only in education, but in careers, everyday life and businesses. I also liked the diagram in the national plan, “Learning no Longer has to be One Size Fits All.”

After reading all the tech plans, I realized just how tiny my districts tech plan is. My school's tech plan does not go into as much detail as the state and national plans. It does not even go into as much detail and Cobb's or Cherokee's plans. I know my school is part of a smaller system...but I feel like we are behind! My school's plan includes a vision, current reality, gap analysis, goals and professional development.

Wheeeew...That's A Lot of Info! (Went back and shortened info

 I understood Pepi and Scheurman's warning to mean that an emphasis on technology to reform may produce “bad teaching.” Instead, we need well trained teachers to be able to use technology effectively.

Instead of teachers sitting in one to two hour workshops on effective technology use, we need professional development programs in schools to support the implementation of technology which will provide teachers with ongoing support, ideas and feedback.

It is difficult to incorporate technology into a constructivist classroom. Most software is used for drill and practice or tutorial. Educators need to become more comfortable with constructivist methods in order to effectively incorporate technology on a regular basis. Educators should collaborate with other educators not only in their own school, but schools nearby or schools with successful constructivist teaching methods. I would like for our math department to see how other schools are implementing constructivist methods in their math classrooms.

When educators resist change, they may feel they do not have the appropriate knowledge or skills to implement. This makes sense as students act the same way when they do not understand certain concepts.

Some do not see the real benefit of new programs or they do not value the use of technology to support education. This is also the same in students; if there is not real-world connection, students are not interested.

Some believe their teaching positions may be in jeopardy if technology is implemented into education. This is a relevant fear, however, I do not see how students needs can be met without an actual teacher in the classroom.

 

Active learning combined with high performance can be seen when the teacher is a facilitator, guide, co-learner and co-investigator. To observe technology use, look for student interaction with technology and look for the teacher monitoring and facilitating work. Look for interaction with students and teachers on problem-solving strategies and connecting information. Students should be using technology to increase knowledge not only in school, but also events and worldly news.

Leading a technology program is not different than leading any other educational program. I agree that it should be similar. A technology plan needs just as much planning, organizing, problem solving, creativity, supervising and team building as any other program. 

 

Useful information for me was to remember to include the resisters and saboteurs in the technology program. Keeping them involved gives them fewer opportunities to destroy the program.

Technology in our schools and our school improvement plan should mesh together. Effective school leadership should include technology leadership since this is where education is heading. As education transforms, our leaders and teachers should too. 

 

Technological change should be observed, practiced and coached. This needs to be an ongoing process with structural changes.The fast pace of technology demands that leaders be up-to-date on information, hold staff development and support staff for the changes. Technology leaders should be prepared to move forward and avoid backsliding.

Creighton fears inappropriate leadership that supports traditional instruction will move technology programs backwards. Traditional uses such as drill and practice will inhibit program development.

To be an effective teacher, I need to be able to engage my students in the content. I need to focus on engaging my students as I incorporate technology to be effective. 

 

The Texas example will help me break down the program plan into smaller, more obtainable pieces.

Driving forces at our school are those teachers who have had technology training and know ways to implement it. Other driving forces are administrators who are willing to move forward in a technology friendly way.

Our discouraging forces are those that are not ready to change their traditional view of education as well as those that do not have the technology skills. I think most of our teachers would be willing to learn if there was adequate support for instructional technology.

I think continuous support form a technology leader would help with the technology plan. Working in the classroom with a technology leader would also be helpful to many of our teachers who are not as confident in implementation.