Technology Use Planning is a detailed, collaborative effort which evaluates the current conditions of an institution; defines the specific learning goals; establishes a clear timeline for the achievement of desired goals; determines and implements the technology best suited to recognize the desired outcome, giving full consideration to current availability and future innovation, and continually evaluates the success rate of the conclusions and the process in an objective manner, revising as needed to ensure ongoing progress.
The process of creating a technology use plan should not be considered a sprint, nor a marathon. A sprint is a fast paced, high energy race that is quickly over with a clearly defined individual winner. A marathon requires much more endurance to complete, has multiple winners but lacks a clearly defined time frame for completion. A better analogy would be that of a cross country team. Cross country racing requires the cooperation of an entire team of athletes skilled in running with endurance through a variety of terrain to achieve a common goal. Creating a plan for the beneficial implementation and use of technology to further prepare students for advancement beyond their current skill level, becoming more efficient and innovative lifelong learners requires the efforts of a team of experts. Stakeholders include administration, teachers, parents, students, community leaders, business partners, technology professionals, and public officials. Each bring a unique insight based on their varied experience and full participation is paramount to the success of the project. The plan should be an explicit outline for future technological endeavors that is goals driven, containing a clear scope and milestones for completion, within a concise time frame. While an assessment of the current strengths and weaknesses should be included, it is important to project a positive and encouraging outlook, presenting to the audience an attainable plan for future success, not a summary of past pitfalls.
Despite being created nearly 2 decades ago, the Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan created by the graduate students at Mississippi State University remains relevant. It serves a great resource to organize the seemingly monumental task into manageable phases resulting in a clear, easily understood product containing a concise plan for the incorporation of technology in education using the most transparent manner possible. In Phase 1, a team of experts is assembled who will perform extensive research for the second phase. The third phase utilizes the research and the advise of the experts to formulate a plan of action. A written document containing the details of those decisions is organized in a formal written presentation in phase 4. The resulting document may include some or all of the following elements.
- Cover Sheet
- Title Page
- Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Executive Summary
- Vision Statement
- Mission Statement
- Demographics
- Committee Membership
- General Introduction
- Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting
- Plan Preparations
- Critical Issues
- Evaluation
- Budget
- Bibliography
- Glossary
- Appendices
- Index
The executive summary is arguably the most important element of phase four. Due to the extensive and vast nature of the report and the varied backgrounds of the intended audience, it may be the only segment read by everyone. Brevity and clarity should be the goal when constructing the executive summary but, the major points of the plan must be highlighted to ensure complete comprehension.
The final phase described in the process is the ongoing evaluation and revision of the plan, implementing improvements as needed. Phase 5 is crucial for the continued growth, innovation and infusion of technology into any environment. It is this continual critique that prevents the stagnation of advancement. Constant consideration of the desired outcomes pushes us beyond our comfort level, challenging us to find solutions to new questions.
The 2010 National Educational Technology Plan provides specific educational goals for our nation as a whole. It outlines Obama administration’s expectation of transformation of the educational system ultimately resulting in economic recovery. The plan addresses learning, teaching, productivity, assessment and infrastructure. The plan serves as a call to action for the administrative professionals, educators and even students. This should be used a starting point to spark thought and discussion in individual districts and schools to rethink everything that is known about education. It serves to challenge the educators be innovative in their methods, modifying their means to better engage the students, preparing them for real world experiences. The NETP details the Department of Education’s role in the promotion of change. Technically, it serves as an excellent example of the components of a technology use plan. Abstractly, it serves as a permission slip from the United States government to every school and teacher to assess their current environment and implement drastic change, now.
I agree with John See’s opinion that to be effective, technology plans should be short term, as presented in Developing Effective Technology Plans. Even with the use of resources such as the Horizon report or CIO’s annual Emerging Technologies study, it is impossible to predict with any accuracy the hardware and software that will be available five years from now.
Looking at Everett Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation graph, innovators are the first group, followed by early adopters, the early majority, the late majority and finally the laggards. Typically, the education market has been late majority adopters of technology. As See inferred, this may be due to creation of long term technology plans that are not re-evaluated, thus locking the institution into purchasing specific hardware or software. This is contrary to the challenges presented in the NETP, which calls for innovation and transformation.
Historically there is an inverse relationship between the number of adopters and the cost of the innovation. That is, as time passes and the price of ownership falls due to competition between manufacturers, the number of adopters increases. Given this model, risk, and budget constraints, it is unlikely that the education market will ever fall in the innovators’ category. Based on the goals in the NETP, the education system must aspire to achieve status of early adopters’ category and settle for nothing less than early majority, thus staying ahead of the curve.
Regarding See’s opinion that “effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology,” I could not agree more. While software developers continue to strive to create applications that are device independent, not all have reached their goal. Working in a technology firm that supports many multimedia companies, I have encountered on several occasions software that will only run on a mac. Some applications are even more specific and will only run on a specific version of the Apple OS. In a corporate environment, this typically involves industry specific, proprietary software that has little competition and great expense. When using niche specific software, which is far from device independent, it would be impossible to choose the hardware first.
As a senior software application specialist responsible for the implementation of computer systems, I have a good deal of experience with technology use planning. The technology company I work for continually evaluates and streamlines our process. We use project planning tools to ensure every aspect of a project is assigned and completed in a timely manner, constantly aware of the scope of the project. I have completed 4 major installations in 2012 and upon completion of each, I have assessed the methods used and made necessary modifications to improve the next cycle. We work diligently to stay ahead of the curve, testing new technology to improve our customers efficiency, revenue and capacity for growth. Although not presented in the same formal manner, many of our processes mimic those in the Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan and the 2010 National Educational Technology Plan.
This project aligns with the following AECT standards:
- 1.3 Instructional Strategies
- 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies
- 2.4 Integrated Technologies
- 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations
- 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization
- 3.4 Policies and Regulations
- 4.1 Project Management
- 4.2 Resource Management
- 5.1 Problem Analysis
- 5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurment
- 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation
- 5.4 Long-Range Planning
References:
melissastlaurent 
Wow! that was well done. I think you read more resources than I did. I am impressed with your information. I loved the analogy of the races. Good choice, good job.
Ilene
Great job!
Melissa, that is an incredible job. Your references are amazing. Kudos to you.
I especially liked your list of items to include (suggestions).