 |
| Retrieved from publicdomainvectors.org and modified using Google Drawings. |
The components that go into a successful technology plan are noted in the graphic above. The missing piece here is "the single biggest barrier to widespread school technology implementation... basic awareness of measurable benefits" (Whitehead, Jensen & Boschee, 2013, p. 228). Whitehead et al. go on to state "the key issue is establishing more effective and accurate ways in which we can measure the real benefits of educational technology" (p.228). The "final piece of the puzzle" is including a program evaluation tool that assesses the success of the district technology plan (Whitehead et al., 2013, p. 228).
Chip Kimball and Peter H. R. Sibley wrote an article titled "Am I on the Mark?" in response to technology plans for e-rate. To assist schools with the process, they "developed their Technology Maturity Model (TMM)" (Kimball & Sibley, 1997, p. 52). "One of TMM's most compelling tools is the Technology Plan Analysis Rubric (see the rubric charts on pp. 56-57)" (Kimball & Sibley, 1997, p. 52). Whitehead et al. (2013) included the rubric chart as a resource in their publication and it is still used today by districts to evaluate the robustness of their technology plans.
After viewing the video, what connections can you make from the example used to a district technology plan? The organization in the video wanted to measure the impact on the participant job attainment and schools want to measure the impact on student learning. We would not provide technology for only a group of students to compare to students without technology, but we do want to focus on the impact of student learning as a result of the work put into the technology plan. Whitehead et al. (2013) lists "program attendance, graduation rates, standardized testing, teacher-made pre- and post-tests, observation, portfolios, grades, and the degree of student participation" as ways to gather data to "provide indications of program success" (p. 232).
When completing the puzzle, incorporating an evaluative tool to determine "the level of comprehensiveness", as Kimball and Sibley (1997) refer to it, should be a piece in developing a district technology plan (p. 56-57). Going one step further, and the reason we are creating a plan to begin with, we should ensure there is a tool in place to measure the impact on student learning.
Evaluation and benefits of technology are difficult to measure. Test scores alone cannot show the benefits of instructional technology integration. The U.S. Dept. of Education (n.d.) states that technology "has the power to transform teaching by ushering in a new model of connected teaching" (para. 1). If technology is bringing changes to teaching and learning, should it not also bring in changes to evaluation and measures of success? There are checklists and rubrics available to evaluate technology plans but not necessarily the technology itself. New forms of evaluation and success need to be developed to evaluate successful and effective technology integration in schools.
ReplyDeleteResource
Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning
Hey Ashley! I enjoyed reading your post this week! I also liked the rubric in the link from your article. It seems to be a comprehensive way to evaluate a tech plan. Whitehead et al., (2013) write, "The evaluation process should help determine if the school's vision of technology truly reflects a focus on student learning. School leaders must examine and review the technology plan to make sure that it encourages teachers to use current research and academic development practices in their classrooms" (p. 230). Creating and evaluating a technology plan is essential to make sure technology integration is meaningful.
ReplyDeleteReference
Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F. N., & Boschee, F. (2013). Planning for Technology: a guide for school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.