Technology use planning can be explained as having two parts:
1. It is a document that maps out how we will get to our goals.
2. It is "the actions, attitudes, and results" that carry out the process.
I borrowed heavily from Larry Anderson's definition in "Technology Planning: It's More Than Computers!", because I really liked his analogy to planning and going on a road trip. Before we can have a successful trip, we need to identify our destination(s), points we will see along the way, the best route, the distance we can realistically travel, and available resources/infrastructure along the way. Then we execute these plans when we take the trip, monitoring and adjusting in a flexible manner when necessary. Anderson's explanation was very accessible.
The National Educational Technology Plan 2010, in this analogy, would be a tourist pamphlet with beautiful glossy pictures and tantalizing descriptions, featuring the sites that we want to visit. We want to see engaged and empowered learning, we want to measure what matters, we want to prepare for effective connected teaching, we want to access and enable our infrastructure, and we want to redesign and transform our productivity. But each school is starting from a unique location, so the routes and resources will vary widely, necessitating a personalized and thoughtful technology use plan for each individual school.
When I first read the NETP, I couldn't help but think about my own school and the planning that needs to take place. I was grateful that someone else had done the visionary goal-setting already, freeing me to think about details and execution. I also think that the NETP does a good job of explaining the history and justification for each needed reform, which should help with buy-in on a local level.
Just as we experience personal transformation through travel, the NETP seeks to transform our educational system through use of technology. It is the "what" and "why" of our technology use plan. The "how", "who", "when", and "where" are left up to the individual schools as they plan their own trips. We will know that we are succeeding when we see increased college enrollment and decreased evidence of achievement gaps.
In reading what John See has to say about technology use planning, I understand why he cautions against long term plans. He argues that technology is changing at an incredibly fast rate (just as true now as it was in 1992!) and that it is very difficult to predict what we will be able to do with technology two, three, four years down the road. However, this message from See seems to slightly contradict his next one: "Effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology". So after planning for the next year, split into phases, why not pencil in some longer-term goals? Even if we don't know what the brands/models/programs/hardware will look like, we can document what we aim to do, nonetheless. If new capabilities become available, we can always modify longer-term plans, but I am definitely someone who likes to see the big picture. I have a hard time understanding the small picture without a bigger frame of reference. I am sure that others feel the same way, and would appreciate an outline of where we are headed. Especially in a school/district that has so much work to do, longer-range planning might help us prioritize and sequence the steps along the way. Resources like the Horizon Report, which discuss emerging technologies, would be helpful when developing longer-range plans. With expert advice and flexibility, I think we can plan for the short term as well as the less immediate future.
To further respond to See's remark that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology", I must say that our 501 class has been essential to my understanding of this principle. Very rarely have we been asked to use a certain program. Rather, we use technology to synthesize and present our learning. The learning itself is delivered through technology and, again, is not restricted to a certain type of computer, browser, or program. I imagine that some of my classmates are using tablets, some (myself included) have done certain things with smartphones, some are probably sitting in front of Windows-driven PC's, and others are using Apple/Mac systems. In the end, it doesn't really matter. I didn't understand this before, but after my experience in this class, I clearly see how technology creates and supports a personalized learning environment. I am grateful for this very practical, hands-on experience.
I am a little nervous about my potential role in technology use planning at my school, because I have never engaged in such planning before. The closest thing I've done in the past would probably be ordering a few programs/devices with my classroom budget. Looking back, I didn't always have a good framework for understanding these purchases, because a couple of the things I've bought now sit and gather dust. I look forward to learning more in the MET program so that I can focus on the applications of technology, rather than gimmicks in catalogs.
As Anderson and See both remind us, a technology use plan is about "more than computers"; it's about people. A road trip isn't about the car ride or even the sites visited, it's about the people and their experience. We must focus on experiences that transform lives for the better, that prepare us for the future, and that vision will guide and motivate us through the tedious stages of planning.
1. It is a document that maps out how we will get to our goals.
2. It is "the actions, attitudes, and results" that carry out the process.
I borrowed heavily from Larry Anderson's definition in "Technology Planning: It's More Than Computers!", because I really liked his analogy to planning and going on a road trip. Before we can have a successful trip, we need to identify our destination(s), points we will see along the way, the best route, the distance we can realistically travel, and available resources/infrastructure along the way. Then we execute these plans when we take the trip, monitoring and adjusting in a flexible manner when necessary. Anderson's explanation was very accessible.
The National Educational Technology Plan 2010, in this analogy, would be a tourist pamphlet with beautiful glossy pictures and tantalizing descriptions, featuring the sites that we want to visit. We want to see engaged and empowered learning, we want to measure what matters, we want to prepare for effective connected teaching, we want to access and enable our infrastructure, and we want to redesign and transform our productivity. But each school is starting from a unique location, so the routes and resources will vary widely, necessitating a personalized and thoughtful technology use plan for each individual school.
When I first read the NETP, I couldn't help but think about my own school and the planning that needs to take place. I was grateful that someone else had done the visionary goal-setting already, freeing me to think about details and execution. I also think that the NETP does a good job of explaining the history and justification for each needed reform, which should help with buy-in on a local level.
Just as we experience personal transformation through travel, the NETP seeks to transform our educational system through use of technology. It is the "what" and "why" of our technology use plan. The "how", "who", "when", and "where" are left up to the individual schools as they plan their own trips. We will know that we are succeeding when we see increased college enrollment and decreased evidence of achievement gaps.
In reading what John See has to say about technology use planning, I understand why he cautions against long term plans. He argues that technology is changing at an incredibly fast rate (just as true now as it was in 1992!) and that it is very difficult to predict what we will be able to do with technology two, three, four years down the road. However, this message from See seems to slightly contradict his next one: "Effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology". So after planning for the next year, split into phases, why not pencil in some longer-term goals? Even if we don't know what the brands/models/programs/hardware will look like, we can document what we aim to do, nonetheless. If new capabilities become available, we can always modify longer-term plans, but I am definitely someone who likes to see the big picture. I have a hard time understanding the small picture without a bigger frame of reference. I am sure that others feel the same way, and would appreciate an outline of where we are headed. Especially in a school/district that has so much work to do, longer-range planning might help us prioritize and sequence the steps along the way. Resources like the Horizon Report, which discuss emerging technologies, would be helpful when developing longer-range plans. With expert advice and flexibility, I think we can plan for the short term as well as the less immediate future.
To further respond to See's remark that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology", I must say that our 501 class has been essential to my understanding of this principle. Very rarely have we been asked to use a certain program. Rather, we use technology to synthesize and present our learning. The learning itself is delivered through technology and, again, is not restricted to a certain type of computer, browser, or program. I imagine that some of my classmates are using tablets, some (myself included) have done certain things with smartphones, some are probably sitting in front of Windows-driven PC's, and others are using Apple/Mac systems. In the end, it doesn't really matter. I didn't understand this before, but after my experience in this class, I clearly see how technology creates and supports a personalized learning environment. I am grateful for this very practical, hands-on experience.
I am a little nervous about my potential role in technology use planning at my school, because I have never engaged in such planning before. The closest thing I've done in the past would probably be ordering a few programs/devices with my classroom budget. Looking back, I didn't always have a good framework for understanding these purchases, because a couple of the things I've bought now sit and gather dust. I look forward to learning more in the MET program so that I can focus on the applications of technology, rather than gimmicks in catalogs.
As Anderson and See both remind us, a technology use plan is about "more than computers"; it's about people. A road trip isn't about the car ride or even the sites visited, it's about the people and their experience. We must focus on experiences that transform lives for the better, that prepare us for the future, and that vision will guide and motivate us through the tedious stages of planning.
No comments:
Post a Comment