Technology Use Planning Overview.

Technology Use Planning:  

The Good, the Bad and the Complicated

Technology use planning goes beyond hardware and software.  A common mistake at my own school and those nationwide occurs when a school or district purchases technology and flies the “Mission Accomplished” sign.  Effective technology use planning sets flexible goals for how technology will be used, how it will integrated into classrooms, and how it enhances various curricula, as well as how teaching professionals will learn best technology practices.  Both the 2010 National Education Technology Plan and John See’s “Developing Effective Technology Plans” emphasize the need for a cohesive plan around not just what types of technology will be used in the classroom, but how this technology will be used help students achieve mastery. 

The National Education Technology Plan 2010

To put together a cohesive plan for the various educational needs of students across the learning spectrum in locations across the country is a daunting task.  They stress that effective use of technology “empowers” students to have access to experts, information and programs despite their actual location in the country.  

Their technology plan also puts teacher professional development at the forefront of effective educational technology.  Not only giving teachers cutting edge information and time to develop skills, but also using technology as a means for teachers to pursue a similar “empowerment” with their own professional development as they work towards providing for students. 

The focus on assessment stresses that technology should use data to drive effective assessment practices and that effective educational technology requires both formative and summative assessment.  John See describes an “effective technology plan” as one that focuses primarily on “applications” rather than on the technology itself.  This point clarifies that the technology is not an end in itself, but an ever-evolving tool.  The Department of Education applies a similar standard in how it conveys the fluidity of assessment, the need to adjust, and the need to “measure what matters”.  One of the biggest hurdles to successful educational technology would be the rigidity in application, since the technology shifts so rapidly, as does students’ ability to use technology in creative ways that quickly outstrip the expectations of teachers. 

Personalized learning means that students have a more individualized educational experiences that allow for innovation and inquiry.  The Department of Education addresses this aspect in its discussion of assessment and game models. In ideal educational practice, the technological capacities would allow individual students to adjust and pace based on their individual learning styles and needs.  Each student’s path would necessarily be different if inquiry-based learning and games provide unique feedback.  

Perhaps most of all, an effective technology plan allows for the growth of interaction, of what Larry S. Anderson deems “the explosive intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth” in his article “Technology Planning:  It’s More Than Computers.”  This communication and access will be for wealthy students in cities as well as poorer students in rural areas.  The Department of Education puts internet access and technology instruction as key components in a 21st century education, as they work to create cohesion in the educational technology of this diverse nation.  Individual schools and districts will have to personalize the challenge, adding curricular specifics and developing a vision of how exactly these capacities will help their students succeed. 

Public Charter School Technologies: Working Towards A Plan

Each year we have elaborate fund-raisers that in the past few years have honed in on technology.  Parents and donors are encouraged to purchase specific devices for classrooms and libraries;  in 2012, the fundraiser resulted in 160 iPads for classrooms.  As a charter school, much of our technology (as well as much of our furniture, paint, etc.) happens at the whim of donors rather than according to any kind of plan.  Thus, whatever we end up with, we have to then plan to use effectively.  Teachers who end up with surprise computers, projectors and iPads certainly don’t complain, but the ad hoc way that these technologies appear (and at times disappear) lead to less than systematic implementation. 

Since the only way to get technology in my classroom was to write a grant rather than wait for yearly fundraisers to trickle in device by device, I got a full classroom set of iPads before I had any experience using this technology or had read any kind of plan for implementation.  Montage of teaching mistakes follow.  Larry S. Anderson emphasizes that “honesty” is key to developing effective technology plans, and I must be honest that when I sallied forth confidently with 25 iPads and a smile, my lack of a cohesive plan caused many moments of chaos. 

John See stresses that an effective technology plan does not just indicate what should be done with the computers and such; an effective technology plan also addresses professional development.  My professional development consisted of various attempts in the classroom, frantic internet searches for solutions and mid-stride adjustments when things started to derail.  As our school adds the various technologies provided by fundraisers, it does not provide professional development or a cohesive plan for how we will use these technologies to further our curriculum goals.  I hope to be a mentor to those with iPads and an advocate for what See terms a “focus on a vision.”  If teachers articulate and share what can help students personalize education and achieve, then this vision can take shape.

In my experience, planning could save time, effort and a multitude of mistakes.  But as John See states, these plans need to evolve as the technology does.  When I first saw a teacher use an iPad in the classroom, it could create wonderful graphic displays, serve as a personalized whiteboard and allow students online collaboration.  But then, when I wrote the grant for my classroom set just a year later, suddenly these iPads also had cameras and video recorders.  I could not have anticipated or planned for just how useful these cameras and video recorders would be for student demonstration of mastery.   See prioritizes the group project using video, for example, as one where not only the curricular skills of showing statistical sampling would be valuable, but also the collaborative strategizing itself. 

As our school moves (a bit haphazardly) towards a schoolwide technology use plan, I need to be part of the solution.  I couldn’t agree more than when John See says that the teachers who will implement the plan need to be part of making it;  in my experience, plans and assessments developed by those who are not teaching do not have the same effectiveness as plans and assessments developed by teachers actually using the materials.  Previously our school’s technology plan has focused on nothing but the technology and the access to the technology.  In the last year, we’ve begun to add basic skills for research, but not integrating technology into curriculum.  In my own classroom, I need a more cohesive plan for the ever-shifting role technology plays in high school mathematics instruction.  These classes in my first semester at Boise State have already forced me to re-evaluate and expand my horizons, which is both incredibly exciting and a bit exhausting!