Creating My Learning Log

I began this learning log in the fall of 2012 while taking my first class in the MET program. While I had never blogged before, the setup was fairly intuitive. I enjoyed working with the many available themes to find one that suited my developing vision.

Perhaps my favorite thing about the MET program is the culminating project, a collection of work representing my time at Boise State. The concept of the learning log is the ultimate example of project based learning. Given I have been adding posts to the log for over a year, I can already see the progress I have made. It is interesting to review the various assignments from the classes I have completed.  All of the posts in the learning log are also listed in the artifacts menu where each project is linked to the corresponding AECT standard.

Clicking on the home menu reveals a bit of information about me, specifically my education, my job and my goals. The about me sub menu includes a short video from the 501 Introduction to Educational Technology class. As I mentioned previously, I have enjoyed revisiting posts from previous classes. I find this one more embarrassing than enjoyable.

Along with the projects, a syllabus for each of the classes I have taken has been included. This is a great resource to reflect upon the work that I have completed.  In anticipation of the portfolio class, I make every effort to update my learning log at the beginning of each semester and between semesters.  I have found that when courses I have taken require the learning log to be updated, I am much more diligent than when I am left to my own devices.

EDTech 522 Module 6 Reflection

Throughout the course, I have had the opportunity to learn new terminology and technology through the activities, exploration, textbook readings, and discussions.

I particularly enjoyed reading about the differences between pedagogy and andragogy. Malcolm Knowles’ six principles rang true to me both as a learner and as a corporate trainer. In my daily efforts, I work with employees at multimedia companies to implement new software systems. I routinely encounter learners that fulfill Knowles description of adult learners precisely. They have a need to know that is deliberate. They are given homework that requires independent problem solving using their experience with the previous system. Many of the systems being replaced are 15 – 20 years old, outdated and plagued with problems. This promotes a readiness to learn. Given a specific date for conversion, there is an urgency to require the new skills. The learners are responsible for the much of the configuration and the decisions on how the new system is organized. This gives them a sense of ownership they did not possess with the previous system. This opportunity enhances the learners’ understanding of the new system. While this process was already in place prior to this semester, I found it interesting how well it naturally aligned with Knowles principles.

While challenging and often frustrating, I found the exploration of Moodle from the instructional designer’s view to be a great benefit. While I have been a student in the MET program for over a year, I had no idea how challenging Moodle can be. I have a new appreciation for all the effort put forth by the instructors who have managed to make Moodle user friendly for the learners. I struggled more with this portion of the course than any other activity. That surprised me because I am responsible for creating a variety of courses for our corporate LMS. While I did not assume that the process would be exactly the same, I did not foresee the how differently the systems functioned. This forced me to practice the problem based learning approach discussed in the Ko and Rossen text.

While the creation of multimedia tutorials was not a new task for me, I think the design of the module was a great opportunity for the learners to learn and share new skills. There is no way that any one student would have the time to explore all the new technologies that were presented by the entire class. This module gave the students the opportunity to collaborate, creating an in depth knowledge share of useful technology. The feedback and discussion posts not just for this activity but throughout the course have proven to be a great reinforcement to the material. According to social development theories, it would be impossible to learn even the most basic language skills, without social interaction, (Horton, 2008).

As I progress through the courses in the MET program, I continue to see the alignment of theory and practice. This was certainly true with this course. While completing the activities, it is clear the outcome will be beneficial. I will certainly adapt the Moodle course for use in our corporate LMS. More importantly is how the objectives are achieved. While reflecting on each of the modules, it is clear that these are theories which are practiced by the instructional designers in the MET program.

“Good design, when it’s done well, becomes invisible. It’s only when it’s done poorly that we notice it.”

 – Jared Spool

Horton, S. L. (2008). Lev goes to college: Reflections on implementing Vygotsky’s ideas in higher education. International Journal of Learning, 15(4), 13–17.

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

EDTECH 522 Module 5 Reflection Assignment

In module five, I created an online lesson on Basic InDesign styles. I work with Canvas learning management system in my role as Senior Software Application Specialist. I found Moodle much more challenging than any aspect of Canvas. I understand that there is a learning curve when implementing any new technology but, my issues went beyond simply being unfamiliar. I found it less than intuitive. Specifically, I did not understand the seemingly random locations of some of the editing tools. Some were located in the main section just above the block while others, such as adding questions to the quiz, are located in the settings panel.

I also encountered strange behavior in how the blocks displayed when using the Topics format. The assessments, reflections, and practice exercise files were not available to the end user. While visible, the user was not able to click on the links. In the edit mode, all worked as expected. After much troubleshooting and searching for a solution, I discovered it was a known issue in Moodle. I resolved the problem by changing the format to folder view.

Despite my challenges with Moodle, I did enjoy this module. I can certainly understand the importance of experimenting with multiple learning management systems. Just over a year ago, we were in the midst of moving from Docebo LMS and evaluated Canvas and Moodle. Due to time limitations, the evaluation methods were less than thorough and we chose Canvas. Given the brief testing period, I often wondered if we made the right decision. After creating the lesson for this module, I can say confidently that we did. While I enjoy using Moodle as a student, I found it cumbersome for the instructional designer.

Basic InDesign Styles Online Lesson

EDTECH 522 Module 3 Reflection Assignment

While some of the material covered in this week’s reading of the Ko & Rossen text seems elementary and somewhat dated, the authors do an excellent job covering all of the possible elements included in online courseware. They remind the authors of the need for variety in presentation and structure of assignments and assessments.  The authors discuss the necessity to consider security and accessibility.

Of particular interest is the author’s discussion of student tracking via automated statistics. Statistics may include information when students log in, the amount of time spent on documents and pages within the courseware. While these stats assist to determine if a user has interacted with the instruction, Ko and Rossen warn, “these indicators are not always accurate, because they can be manipulated by students.” This gaming of the system can be achieved if a student opens the content within the CMS or LMS and does nothing else. The authors explain, “this will give the appearance of the student having spent a great deal of time studying that section of the course.”

I had this same concern while designing the courseware for my company. The instruction is presented via videos. The LMS lacks the ability to prevent a user from advancing to the next assignment without completing the current video. It simply lacks the necessary verification.  I attempted to overcome this with the design of the assessment. I created quizzes that require the user to explore the software being trained. This ensures the learner possesses familiarity with the software, which is the ultimate goal. Regardless of  whether the users receives the instruction form the videos or self guided exploration, the learner has acquired the necessary skill.

Ko and Rossen discuss the use of low-threshold, low-barrier tools. According to the authors, “low-threshold, low-barrier means those technologies that are easily learned by you (and perhaps by your students) and that can be used to easily accomplish your instructional objectives.”  The use of the terms easily and accomplish jumped out at me. When designing the courseware, it could be easy to lose focus what is to be accomplished in an effort to implement the latest, greatest technology regardless of ease of use. The authors stress the need to ask “how and why” when implementing any tools. It is this dialogue that reminds the designer to analyze the every aspect of the courseware to ensure it has purpose and relevance.

EDTECH 522 Module 1 Reflection Assignment

1. Summarize the six key assumptions about adult learners as described by Malcolm Knowles.

There is some debate as to whether Malcolm Knowles defined Andragogy as the education of adults. Regardless of origin, he is certainly credited with propelling the concept. Knowles believed there to be six principles that were true with every adult learner. If educators considered all of these, in conjunction with the individual learner’s situational differences and the goals of the learning, objectives would certainly be met.

The first principle is that adult learners have a need to know. Unlike their younger counter parts, adults specifically seek knowledge when confronted with a problem that requires resolution. This is a deliberate process.

The second principle states that with maturity comes the concept of self. The adult learner finds the independence necessary to become self-directed in defining their learning goals. This active participation can be seen in the constructivism theory.

The consideration of the prior experience of the learner is the third concept. Constructivism theory is founded on the idea of meaning being created by individuals based on their own experience. Learning is subjective based on the filters applied due to an individual’s past experience.

Similar to an adult’s need to know, Knowles fourth principle describes a readiness to learn. Knowles believed that this was driven by the learner’s societal roles and the tasks required.

The fifth principle is a shift in the orientation of learning through maturity. With all problem centered learning or just in time training, there is a sense of urgency. Learning is to be implemented now, not at an unknown time in the future.

The final principle addresses the adult learners’ motivation to learn. Knowles believed that the adult learner participated in learning not simply to allow immediate solutions to practical problems but to satisfy an internal quest for knowledge and understanding.

Overall, Knowles principles can be summed up as learner autonomy in a problem based, student centered environment. An example of Knowles principles in a problem based learning environment can be seen in my workplace daily. Working in IT, we are often faced with technical issues that we have simply never encountered before. When this occurs, we first apply what has proven successful in similar situations in the past. When all efforts prove unsuccessful and we still are expected to provide a solution, we search for others who have encountered and conquered the same issue. We scour the web for knowledgebase articles, forums, and manuals. As time passes, there is a sense of urgency to resolve the issue but it does not simply stop there. During the search, you reach an unconscious point when the issue is no longer an inanimate object or condition but an adversary challenging you. When the orientation shifts, so does the motivation and you will not be stopped until you resolve the problem AND understand the source.

2. Where are you on the Grow’s Staged Self Directed Learning Model?

Grow believed that adult learners may or may not be self-directed, depending on the situation. He believed that it is possible for a learner to be motivated and independent in one area while completely dependent in another. Based on some of the concepts of Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership, Grow matched learner traits with teacher roles in his Staged Self Directed Learning Model. It was Grow’s belief that self directed behavior can be taught. Table 1 below outlines the 4 stages of the self directed learning model.

 Table 1. Staged Self Directed Learning Model

	Student	Teacher	Examples
Stage 1	Dependent	Authority, Coach	Coaching with immediate feedback. Drill. Informational lecture. Overcoming deficiencies and resistance.
Stage 2	Interested	Motivator, guide	Inspiring lecture plus guided discussion. Goal-setting and learning strategies.
Stage 3	Involved	Facilitator	Discussion facilitated by teacher who participates as equal. Seminar. Group projects.
Stage 4	Self-directed	Consultant, delegator	Internship, dissertation, individual work or self-directed study-group.

By nature, it is my immediate desire as a learner is to gravitate as far from dependency as possible. I suspect that comes from my perfectionist ways, despite Grow’s acknowledgement that there is nothing wrong with being a dependent learner. I certainly agree that the level of self direction varies according to the situation. Typically my learning behavior would be somewhere between stages 3 and 4. Regardless of my familiarity with the subject matter, I am confident in my ability to achieve based on past experience where diligence and application promoted success. I am intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to succeed. That is many of the things I do are done so for self esteem, promotion, and recognition from others. I have good time management skills, as I work full-time, while pursuing my masters, taking on free-lance jobs, and keeping up with other outside obligations but I am also aware that I sometimes procrastinate, rationalizing that I work better in the face of a deadline.

As an instructor, it is important to be flexible in your approach so you may successfully engage learners in each stage. My teaching approach is varied across the stages but I have far to go before achieving mastery level. In my role as corporate trainer, I train people of all skill levels. It is my responsibility to teach them but that do not work for me. This creates a unique situation in which need to overcome resistance, outlined in stage 1 is a reality. While I can advise, encourage, provide specific instruction and feedback, I have no authority to make the learners participate. I am certain this is also a consideration of educators with standardized testing and success percentages dictating the future of their employment. Typically, I find my instruction in stage 2. I offer encouraging words, building the learners’ confidence and comfort through frequent feedback and recognition.

 

Cross, K. Patricia. 1981. Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching Learners to be Self-Directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125–149. Retrieved from http://www.longleaf.net>

Community of Practice

For this module, I chose to research the community of practice (CoP) learning model. I find this interesting because we had implemented a CoP within our company, simply by chance, which is part of the definition of a CoP. Two things get me excited about that.

First, I love it that the education I am receiving right now is relevant, right now. When making the decision to return to school, one of the questions posed to me was, would it be a wise investment that would assist me in reaching my career goals. Every time I am able to draw a parallel between what is happening in my textbook to what is happening in my office, I believe that is a definitive yes. Understanding theory and the ‘why’ to everything thing I do helps me to make better choices in the future.

I work for a technology company that provides training and support for a multitude of properties across the U.S. and in the Carribbean. In addition to training and support, our company partners with a local university to provide internships to computer science and information technology students. The community of practice implemented within our company is made up of full-time web developers who serve as experts and student interns. I created the following diagram of the community of practice to demonstrate how interns progress through the process.

 

 

Graphical representation of a community of practice – Melissa St. Laurent

The president of our company recently shared a PowerPoint presentation from a colleague that outlined the differences between big technology companies, big companies with technology and startups. This immediately brought to mind Andriessen’s archetypes (2005).

Archetypes of knowledge groups

Cluster Name	Connectivity	Institutionalization	Example of group	From the speakers deck
Interest groups	low	low	Shared interest, little or no cohesion
Informal networks	moderate	low	Communities of interest, Wenger Network of professionals, Brown	Startups?
Informal communities	high	low	Communities of practice, Lave & Wenger	Morris Technology
Strategic communities	high	high	Corporate project teams	Big Technology Companies
Communities	low	high	Delphi participants	Big Companies with Technology

Afterward, I had the opportunity to share with him, the above diagrams and some of the highlights from Hoadley (2012)  in chapter 12 overview. Pleased with the parallel between the two, he is now arranging a forum to discuss communities of practice on a larger scale.

Another example of relevance occurred this evening. While traveling with colleagues a discussion of skill set development surfaced. In this conversation, an example of an intern was given who lacked the knowledge to complete specific tasks. I was able to share the necessity for the availability of experts, scaffolding and other key aspects of the community of practice model.

This brings me to the second reason I get excited. By sharing the relevant knowledge taken from this course with my boss and peers, I am now an active participant in a knowledge share.  I am not naïve enough to believe that the CoP model is the answer to all my training. To impose that would be contrary to much of the research presented in my annotated bibliography.

References:

Andriessen, J. H. E. (2005). Archetypes of knowledge communities. Communities and Technologies, 191–213.

Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286–299). Routledge.

Social Development Theory

Module 2 Reflection
Melissa St. Laurent
504 – Spring 2013

I found this module of particular interest. It is very enlightening to learn about the theories that underlie many of the activities in which we participate throughout or own education, both formal and informal, as well as the activities that we assign as instructors. As Horton pointed out in his article, Lev goes to college: Reflections on implementing Vygotsky’s ideas in higher education, many of these learning theories are already in use despite the fact that many have no idea of the source (2008).

The journal article, Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective (Ertmer & Newby, 1993), was an absolute gem. This article brought to the forefront several critical questions that I will now incorporate in all future trainings. It is critical to understand the limitations of the technology, the diversity of the learners, and the acceptability of the material in relation to the goal of the instruction.

Every response given to the question why the study of learning theories is relevant to the instructional designer resonated with me (Ertmer & Newby,  1993, p. 51).

1. Learning theories are a source of VERIFIED instructional strategies, tactics & techniques.
2. Learning theories provide the foundation for INTELLIGENT and REASONED strategy selection.
3. Integration of the selected strategy within the instructional CONTEXT is critical.
4. Learning theories allow for reliable PREDICTION when time and resources are limited.

Perhaps the greatest advice given within the article was that although it is crucial for designers to understand the history of the learning theories, it is acceptable to cherry pick aspects from multiple theories, based on evaluation of the learners and the end goal. This concept is referred to as systematic eclecticism. (Ertmer & Newby,  1993, p. 70). There is not always one theory that meets all the needs presents. This is not a permission to dismiss the historical value of the theories, quite the contrary.  According to Ertmer and Newby (1993, p. 69), “…to be an eclectic, one must know a lot, not a little, about the theories being combined.”

This is my first journey into learning theory. In my work, I have implemented many aspects of the articles I have read for this assignment, with varying degrees of success. Throughout the reading for this topic, I was able to draw many parallels to my current practice. I have created forms of practice fields and communities of practice outlined in situative learning during the implementation of software. I continually use the aspects of the social development theory everyday as I assist employees through hands on training activities.  My implementation tactics were eclectic, but only by chance.

The problem with that is, I am a control freak. I do not like leaving things to chance. I understand that not all things are in my control but, being armed with the knowledge will afford me the opportunity to make educated decisions regarding strategy.

View this document on Scribd

Educational Technology Definition

This assignment really made me consider much of what I thought about educational technology. I had mistakenly thought it to be a fairly new field. I found it of particular interest that the term ‘new media’ was being used to describe the inclusion of motion picture in curricula in 1922. Although familiar with SCORM, the I did not realize it was a concept created by the DoD and ADL.

While watching the Looking Backward, Thinking Forward video, I made several notes from the timeline. I could not help but notice the similarity in delivery methods despite the differences in technology. Lectures via radio and motion picture projectors have simply been replaced by podcasts, webinars and online video tutorials on YouTube, an LMS or MOOC.

Our society equates change with risk. By definition, innovation is constant change. Due to this fluidity, technological innovation is often met with skepticism. Although it is prudent to avoid the ineffectual adoption of technology, it is imperative that fear of the unknown not be allowed to stagnate all progress.

________________________________________________________

My definition:

Educational Technology is the proactive pursuit and timely implementation of the most innovative, effective tools, processes and perspectives to ensure learners move beyond mere memorization to full comprehension, application, and most significantly, retention of knowledge. All adopted methods should be evaluated for relevance, appropriateness and accessibility to the target audience. Consideration should be made to ensure the security of the learners, infrastructure and intellectual property. Constant, objective evaluation of the chosen tools and procedures is necessary to avoid rigidity.

________________________________________________________

Module 1 Reflection Melissa St. Laurent 504 – Spring 2013 I have been a corporate trainer for 7 years. I believe in what I teach and I am passionate about improving the employee experience through training. Until recently, this training was very application specific and heavily laden with demonstration. I was the subject matter expert who stood before the group and imparted my great wisdom upon them. Because it was very specific and role based, it was productive but lacked longevity.

I am a perfectionist. Settling for being a productive trainer would never do. It frustrated me to visit trainees after the sessions and find they had not applied what they learned. I was fully confident that I had the knowledge to make people’s jobs easier and enjoyable, IF I could capture their attention. Since standing before a group of trainees and yelling ‘listen to me, I can help you,’ was not an acceptable method, I had to find a better way to engage them.

Prior to the company wide implementation of a new software system, we began investigating the use of a learning management system. This seemed the ideal time to re-evaluate all my training methods. In addition to researching, population and maintenance of a newly deployed LMS, I began actively searching for resources to make me a better trainer. I researched educational blogs, participated in Adobe webinars, and scoured the web for information about effective training methods for adult learners. After paying $1400 for a Captivate training session that provided very little return on investment, I decided it was time to seek more formal education. That is how I found the M.E.T. program. My current career goal is to be a brilliant trainer, able to engage and enrich adult learners to improve their efficiency and work experience. 

This is only my second semester at Boise State. In the first semester, I learned of many great tools to make me a more successful student. I tried to apply some of the technology to my professional life but for the most part, the tools were not really relevant. I did benefit a great deal from using the LMS. It gave me the opportunity to experience distance learning from the student’s perspective. This semester, I am able to see how different professors utilize the flexibility of the LMS to manage their course. With each applying different preferences, every course assumes a different style. Seeing this showcase of available tools allows me to better understand how the design of the user interface affects the user experience. With a smaller staff, we have the ability to unify the user interface.  Although a standard layout may make the navigation of the site easier for the user, I do not want to limit the use of the technology.

I have found the first assignment energizing. As I mentioned in my definition post, the readings and videos caused me to delve deeper into my understanding of educational technology. This assignment is a relevant and necessary step to reach my goal. Highlights from the assigned material: History of Ed Tech Timeline 1922    Motion picture defined as New Media 1930    University student listens to lecture on radio 1943    World market for computers = 5 I found this particularly interesting given that I have:

• Smartphone with Windows OS
• iPad
• Samsung tablet with Windows 8
• Dell laptop
• Custom built desktop
• Dell media server

Graphic courtesy of E.L. Counts, Jr.

1946    Dales Cone of Experience

1949    Computers may weigh as little as 1.5 Tons Consider smartphones & tablets. More power, smaller device.

1950    TVs introduced into classroom 1970    Texas Instrument calculator

1981    640k ought to be enough for anyone – Bill Gates

This seems funny now. I remember buying a computer with a 40G hard drive and thinking I would never fill it up. Ironically, many of the devices that are on the market today have moved to much smaller internal storage, as they utilize cloud storage. Bill Gates may be proven right after all.

1990    Web & Disks

2000    Blackboard | Smartboard | Moodle | Internet | Facebook | MOOC | YouTube | Smartphones | Text

• New Media is not a new term or movement, just relative to the era
• Change is constant
• Many classrooms of today resemble those of the past
• How much has the teaching & learning process really changed?

1. Motion picture replaced by YouTube, video tutorials online or on LMS
2. Radio lecture replaced by podcasts
3. Smartboards replace blackboards
4. Blackboard replaces Smartboard
5. Moodle replaces grade book
6. TBL is synchronous with eLearning

• TBL Benefits

1. Accessibility
2. Scalability
3. Ease of updates
4. Self paced
5. Cost
6. Learner centric
7. Discovery learning

• TBL challenges

1. Digital divide
2. Absence of authority figure – social loafing
3. Attrition
4. Device compatibility
5. Initial investment
6. Access for learners with disabilities This is not something I had considered with our corporate LMS. How will an employee with a disability achieve same level of training? The tutorials rely heavily on visual cues.
7. Although acceptance continues to grow, online schools may not get the same respect as traditional brick & mortar universities.
8. This does not really affect the corporate system. I have encountered a similar situation with customers who still believe the employees would benefit more from face to face training than the same training given remotely.
9. How do we create simulations, goal based scenarios and games out of the application? We need a way to entangle employee education with entertaining user experience.

• Our current blended training process is both asynchronous & synchronous.

1. Videos and quizzes can be taken on users’ schedule
2. Videos can be paused
3. Specific dates for live trainings via gotomeeting
4. Users must have related videos & quizzes completed prior to live training.
5. Instructor-Centric, Content-Centric and Learner-Centric Teaching

• SCORM developed by DoD’s ADL
• Personal growth courses
• Former employees cite lack of training as reason for leaving.- Home Depot

1. A well trained employee is a productive employee
2. A productive employee has confidence in their contribution
3. A productive, confident employee is a happy employee.
4. Happy employees is less likely to seek other employment

• According to the Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States, the number of students enrolled in one+ online course(s) increased by to 6.7 million. Full 2013 report available here.
• University of Phoenix

1.  “rolling-cohort” enrollment model 8-13 students
2. Instructors must work in the field they teach
3. Working students take only 1 class a semester
4. outcomes-driven
5. assessment of the course material
6. assessment of the students
7. modules completed in order by specific date
8. content via online media
9. professors are advised not  to lecture
10. small classes = low attrition rates
11. 97% completion rate

• Assessment

1. Reaction – surveys
2. Learning – pre & post training evaluations
3. Behavior – Are the users transferring the knowledge to action?
4. Results – Was the goal met?
5. ROI

• Key principles

1. Do not forego Human Interaction
2. Active engagement is critical
3. Content must be relevant & timely
4. Feedback eliminates isolation
5. Change is continuous.

Great work is risky & challenging. As you increase competency and comfort, great work becomes good work. (from Do More Great Work by Michael Bungay Stanier.) I believe the same is true for technology. Watch the Great Work you tube video.

Technology Evaluation Summary

I do not work in a school but was granted special permission to use my employer as the subject of my survey and evaluation. I enjoyed the evaluation process very much. It gave me the opportunity to take an objective look at the technology company I work for, considering areas that need improvement and the areas where improvement is attainable.

There were a few hurdles to overcome with this assignment. Due to the small, close knit nature of our team, maintaining objectivity was somewhat difficult. Modifying the structure of the survey was a bit challenging. Demographic information of a school or district with one physical location is more clearly explained than that of a student body which is scattered across the United States. Due to the nature of the our business, the overall rankings in the technology survey are most likely higher than a school survey.

I found the maturity benchmarks survey spreadsheet of particular benefit. I believe I will be able to incorporate portions of this form with an existing form our company uses to evaluate the hardware and software needs of properties  prior to the implementation of a new system. As our company offers more hosted SaaS solutions to our customers, success is dictated by the quality of connectivity available in the region. Adding this to the pre-implementation property evaluation will allow us to be proactive in addressing ISP and network infrastructure issues.

Below is a link to the full survey and evaluation.

Maturity Benchmarks Survey Study Results

IniTech Technology Progress Survey

View this document on Scribd

Technology Use Planning Overview

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:

Anderson, L., Al-Weshail, A. S., Baxter, A. L., Cherry, W., Hill, E. W., Jones, C. R., … Woods, J. C. (1996). Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan. Mississippi State University. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/downloads/guidebook.pdf

Anderson, L. S., & Perry, J. F. (1994). Technology planning: Recipe for success. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/tp_recipe.cfm

Currier, G. (January 2011). Emerging Technology Adoption Trends for 2011. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Research/Emerging-Technology-Adoption-Trends-for-2011-184380/

See, J. (1992). Developing effective technology plan. The Computing Teacher, 19(8). Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

Graph: Diffusion of innovations – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations