Technology Budgeting and Professional Development

In the twenty-first century, both technology and professional development are crucial and imperative aspects of all schools and educational organizations. While they are imperative, both require a great deal of funding, which requires systematic financial planning. Many administrators, instructional coordinators and other school leaders question the cost effectiveness of technology purchases. According to Piccano (2011), the basic question concerning the cost-effectiveness of technology is, “are the funds expended on technology worth the improvement in learning when compared to costs of other types of instructional delivery?" (p. 250). Additionally, although school leaders know the importance of professional development, often times it is overlooked when combined with instructional technology purchases because of the expenses associated with software and devices. The answer to Piccano's question about the cost effectiveness of technology is hard to justify and often convoluted. I would argue that the lack of funding toward professionally development is only inhibiting the cost effectiveness of technology purchases on learning because barriers that teachers and students hit interrupt instructional time and often discourage teachers from using technology in their curriculum, which therefore negatively impact the cost effectiveness of technology on learning. 

The Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd) reviewed a variety of case studies related to technology integration.  "Four common strategies that teachers face in their efforts to integrate technology into their curriculum were identified: adequate time, both to identify and learn compatible and relevant software; scheduling of access to computers; adequate equipment and use; and adequate and timely professional development. These findings are consistent with national findings."  Of the four challenges, at least two of the four could be tackled with adequate professional development and training. The fact that appropriate monies are not allocated to training on use and implementation of instructional technology is negatively impacting any research conducted on the effectiveness of technology on learning. I would argue that if sufficient attention was given to professional development then the effectiveness of technology on learning would be much more apparent and would drastically increase because faculty and staff would know how to effectively and efficiently implement it into their curriculum.

In Chapter 11 of Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology, Piccano suggests a professional development planning model to be integrated with technology planning and that "professional development is a product of the larger technology planning model" (pg. 217). After technology planning , the professional development model includes: planning for professional development; assessing needs; designing a program that meets the needs of both district and school; and providing incentives for staff to participate; implementing the program and evaluating and reviewing the program" (pg. 217). There are multiple ways to design technology professional development, including hands-on activities, one-on-one coaching, and training the trainer. Furthermore, CITEd's review shows that "in addition to effective professional development, supporting technology integration also entails the following elements: establishing communities of practice, providing administrative support, and creating relevance to context and curriculum." In conclusion, school leaders should take measures to ensure that the technology budget includes monies for professional development and training. Securing devices and equipment is only half of the battle. Faculty must be educated on the need, use and implementation of instructional technology purchases so that they can effectively and efficiently integrate it into their curriculum.

References

Image retrieved from: http://techintegrationmethod2.weebly.com/

Center for Implementing Technology in Education. Learning from case studies of technology integration. http://www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_id=149#case

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!

                                                                                                                                                                "Hardware add-ons, software updates, modifications, and new releases are commonplace in computing life. As a result, the number and types of decisions have grown considerably in the past 20 years" (Piccano, 2011, p. 187). It's obvious to state that in today's world, technology hardware and software evaluation is a major task of school leaders, administrators and technology specialists. In addition to hardware and software, now there are also decisions to be made about applications (apps), web 2.0 tools, cloud storage and instructional technology usage in general. Considering Apple apps alone, there were 20,000 education and learning apps developed by the year 2012 (Rao, 2012). Three years later, we can only imagine how many more education applications are available (and we're just talking Apple apps here!) According to Piccano (2011), "even after hardware or software has been selected, new models or new versions quickly appear - requiring yet another decision" (p.187).

To help sort through all of these decisions, Piccano (2011) offers seven criteria for selecting hardware and six criteria for software. Among the criteria for hardware evaluation are: "performance (how well does the hardware work?); compatibility (does the hardware work with other equipment?); modularity/expandibility (can the hardware grow as applications grow?); ergonomics (is the hardware designed with people in mind?); software availability (is the software you wish to use currently available?); vendor (what is the reputation of the manufacturer in terms of technical support, maintenance, and industry position?); cost (what are the costs?)" (p. 190). Software evaluation includes, "efficiency (how well are the programs written?); ease of use (how easy is the software to use?); documentation (what is the quality and quantity of the documentation?); hardware requirements (what hardware is needed to run the software?); vendor (same) and cost (same)" (p. 197).

More important than hardware and software decisions, are decisions concerning the educational effectiveness of the program (whether it be hardware or software). At first glance, it seemed that this important factor was left out of Piccano's hardware and software criteria guidelines. However,  In Appendix C of the text, Piccano compiled an extensive list of criteria for developing a software evaluation form or checklist for schools or districts. According to Piccano (2011), "an evaluation form helps define the evaluation procedure itself, and administrators and teachers should work together to develop what they feel will work best in their schools" (p. 208). The evaluation factors are grouped into eight categories: general, content, appropriateness, questioning techniques, approach/motivation, evaluator's field test results, creativity, learner control, learning objectives, goals and outcomes, feedback, simulations, teacher modifiability, evaluation and record keeping, documentation and support material, technical quality, start-up and implementation, graphics and audio, probeware and peripherals included in the software package, and hardware and marketing issues (p.289-294).  All of these factors together, along with the hardware and software criteria, will greatly help any school or district determine the most effective technology components to enhance their curriculum.

References

Image retrieved from: http://sellingwithsean.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Decisions-Decisions-910x1024.png

Instructional Software Evaluation Factors: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdbest/techplan/maps/App_e.htm

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rao, Leena. (2012). Apple: 20,000 Education iPad Apps Developed; 1.5 Million Devices in Use at Schools. http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/apple-20000-education-ipad-apps-developed-1-5-million-devices-in-use-at-schools/

Data Analysis and An Overview of the K-12 Graduation Tracking System (GTS)

In the field of education, data can be a scary yet imperative term. The task of data analysis within a school, although overwhelming at times, is necessary according to Piccano (2011) because, among other things, "given the extensive reporting requirements of various governmental agencies, school leaders need to be able to demonstrate that they have access to and can provide critical data about their schools. Failure to do so can jeopardize budget requests, grant applications, and overall credibility with governmental officials" (p. 53). Now, more than ever, there is a growing push for schools to take on a data-driven decision making model for not only school policies and procedures but also for curriculum decisions. The simplest definition of this data-driven decision making model is "the use of data analysis to inform the courses of action involving policy and procedures, whereas, data analysis is used to inform and does not replace the experience, expertise, intuition, judgement, acumen, and compassion of competent educators" (Piccano, 2011, p. 69). The initial questions of how and why lead us to who will take on this task. As schools begin to approach the process of implementing a data-driven model, they will quickly realize the need for someone with technical skill and statistical expertise to analyze and interpret data. According to Piccano, this person must "possess a number of skills, especially familiarity with information systems and fundamental statistical analysis, and serves as an important resource person for others (administrators, teachers, parents) in using data effectively" (p. 75).

I began wondering how this process looks in a K-12 setting, specifically in a high school. STI's InformationNOW (INOW)  is currently used in all schools throughout the state of Alabama. What many users aren't aware of, are the many add on features of INOW. One of these features, used extensively at Montevallo High School, is the Graduation Tracking System (GTS) through the INFocus information system software. According to the State Department of Education (2013) "the GTS utilizes existing STI technology to capture student information pertaining to attendance, behavior and course performance data as 'high yield' indicators" (p. 3).

Once a school decides to use the GTS method for student intervention and procedural decision making, identifying the team is the most important task.According to the training manual provided by the State Department of Education (2013), the purpose of the GTS Team is to review and discuss the information available in the INFocus tool, particularly about individual students identified as at risk of dropping out of school. The Team should meet at set intervals throughout the school year and continuously monitor student behavior changes and effectiveness of interventions. The Team should be comprised of individuals who have broad knowledge of student needs, appropriate interventions, and have the authority to resolve obstacles. Select individuals should serve on the team over multiple years to ensure continuity and consistency (p. 7-8).

At Montevallo High School, the 9th grade team was the first group to work with a graduation coach and GTS. This year, the graduation coach is following the data of the original 9th graders (10th graders now) and the current class of 9th graders.

Table 1 shows the suggested schedule for implementing the GTS (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 5).

TABLE 1

Once the team and target students are identified, the GTS data is reviewed to identify any students that are at risk for dropping out as determined by the high yield indicators (attendance, behavior and course performance). 

Table 2 shows an example school and system benchmark for the three indicators (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 9).

TABLE 2

Once a student is flagged in the GTS system for one or more of the indicators, the Team then makes intervention decisions based on that student's data.

Table 3 shows example questions for the Team to consider in their interval meetings (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 11).

TABLE 3

Table 4 provides example dropout prevention strategies (State Department of Education, 2013, p. 13).

TABLE 4

Schools that do not employ a graduation coach can easily adopt this method of teaming and intervening. However, someone will need to be given access to the INFocus reports and be named as data analyst. Lastly, Piccano stresses that, as with any technological system, "success and progress will depend on the ability of institutional leaders to harness and convert information resources into knowledge about what is happening within an organization while monitoring the forces that influence it from the outside" (p.54). With that said, the people at the center of the INFocus Graduation Tracking System are integral to its success.

For more information on GTS and training materials, see Introduction to GPS

References

Image retrieved from: http://spotfire.tibco.com/blog/?p=21624

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

State Department of Education. (2013). Introduction/Implementation process for the K-12 graduation tracking system (GTS). Montgomery, AL: State Department of Education.

The Four Major Elements of Successful Planning (The Four Cs)

Planning in and of itself it is a concept near and dear to most educators. Educators spend countless hours planning lessons, activities, and assessments. It is a necessary evil. Merriam-Webster defines a plan as a “set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something” and planning as “the act or process of making a plan to achieve or do something”. Both of these definitions point out that while planning is a process, it requires that you have the end result in mind prior to implementation.

In our first synchronous discussion, my classmates and I spent a good deal of time talking about the planning process as it relates to planning for technology in education. We agreed that, often times, educators and administrators focus solely on obtaining the funds for new technology purchases without fully thinking through staff training on how the technology should be implemented into the curriculum to enhance teaching and learning. The focus of Chapter Two in Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology is on the basic concepts of planning. Piccano (2011) refers to Sheathelm for the common elements in the planning process. Sheathelm identified four major elements of successful planning as the four Cs: comprehensiveness, collaboration, commitment, and continuity. The four Cs could serve as a great model or framework for educational technology planning.

Comprehensiveness
Picciano (2011) states, “Planning for technology requires concentrating on a total application. By choosing an application and asking what is needed to make it successful, educators will naturally have to consider questions regarding obvious components such as hardware and software as well as other less obvious components such as staff development, curricular integration, facilities, and ongoing maintenance” (p. 10). Picciano makes a significant point here about the importance of keeping the entire objective of integrating technology into the curriculum in mind. A “total view of a school and what it is supposed to accomplish for students and the community is an essential element” (p. 19). I love that Piccano includes the community in his statement. Involving the community in the planning process is a huge component of comprehensiveness. In order to formulate a comprehensive plan, administrators and technology leaders need first assess the needs of their students, faculty and school as whole. Then, goals and objectives can be created based on these needs. Lastly, a comprehensive plan is written as a blueprint to meet these objectives.

Collaboration 
When planning for technology in education, it is imperative to involve a wide variety of people in the process. A technology committee should be formed to guide the direction of the comprehensive written plan. This committee should include representation from the administration, faculty, on-site specialists, the student body, and parents. In addition to the exchange of knowledge, “collaboration also allows for greater appreciation of several perspectives of a goal, objective, or need” (p. 20).

Commitment
I feel that the most difficult of the four Cs is commitment. Time and time again educators hear about the importance of “buy-in” from students, parents, administrators and stake-holders. In order for technology goals and objectives to be met, all parties need to be committed to the process. If the collaboration portion of the planning process is strong, gaining commitment from those instrumental in carrying out the plan will be much more attainable. Furthermore, commitment is often viewed as bottom down. “Commitment from teachers, staff, or parents will only come if there is a sense on their part that the administrative leadership is committed to a plan” (p. 20).

Continuity 
The written comprehensive plan is far from being the end of the planning process. As society, people and technology change, so should plans in order to meet the needs of students. Piccano puts it best, “An organization is like a living organism that continually responds and adjusts to environmental stimuli. As the values of a society change, so must the way schools prepare students to live and function in that society. As new tools and technologies are developed, so should our methods of training students to use these tools and technologies” (p. 20). The written plan is only a guideline for everyday activities (p. 20) in an effort to achieve the goals and objectives set forth by the technology planning committee. In order for technology planning to be effective, plans must be tweaked, revised, reviewed and evaluated based on the changing needs of students, faculty and the community as a whole.

For schools trying to decide where to start their technology planning, Intel provides a blueprint model that includes elements of leadership, policy, funding, curriculum and assessment, infrastructure and professional development.

References

K-12 Blueprint: Resources for planning and implementing education technology. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVSFoJWsP_A

Piccano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology. (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Plan. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plan

Planning. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planning

Social Media and Purposeful Digital Writing

As compared to other forms of writing, our digital writing often seems to happen at a much more rapid and less focused rate. When we think of status updates, tweeting, texting and even emailing it often seems much more casual than writing a research paper. We should, in fact, be much more diligent about our digital writing since it is writing that will remain around forever due to the internet and "the cloud". If even as adults this can sometimes be challenging we can only imagine how difficult it is for adolescents to really comprehend the importance of taking digital writing seriously. As Troy Hicks points out in chapter seven of Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts Across Media and Genres, "It is quickly becoming our duty as educators in the 21st-century to guide our students toward responsible use of social media" (Hicks, 2013, p.138). I think this concept is hard for a lot of educators who are struggling themselves to catch up to the social media craze. Hicks points out that the main goal should be to "help students become intentional" he goes on to say that "if we simply have students sign up with the social media service and then use it in the same way we use other web-based tools - distribute assignments, have students randomly reply to each other on discussion posts - we are not inviting them to think deeply and creatively about how to craft social media texts. If we only use social media to re-create teacher centered instruction we're not using its power to our students' advantage" (Hicks, 2013, p.140). For me personally that is the most difficult concept of using social media and digital writing in the classroom. Luckily in the last chapter of Crafting Digital Writing, Hicks' focus is on modeling and mentoring the digital writing process. He responds to what he calls FAQs or "frequently argued questions" that teachers often ask him about the use of social media and digital writing in the classroom. Next, he walks us through the analysis of several student examples of digital writing. In his analysis of these examples he uses protocols for looking at student work available in the second addition of Looking Together at Student Work as well as his own "Creating a Digital Writing Assignment" which is found in Appendix A of the text. I know that both of these resources will be beneficial to me as I try to move toward crafting purposeful digital writing assignments and moving away from just replacing teacher centered instruction with technology. The largest part of this analysis and of creating digital assignments is the MAPS Heuristic. I've mentioned this before and it involves mode, media, audience, purpose, and situation. Hicks claims that asking students to enter the writing process matters a great deal (Hicks, 2013, p.160). I think that in order to get the conversation about purposeful digital writing started maybe we should first have students analyze their current digital writing, using these protocols and MAPS in an effort to have them contemplate their digital craft and where they are lacking. Whether we are encouraging purposeful and responsible use of digital writing and social media, our students are using it. I'm only friends with students I've taught once they graduate, but I've heard about school related posts by current students. It's interesting to me how students often use their social media to talk about school issues and often in a very negative manner. They have an open forum at all times where they can voice their opinions (good and bad). Two years ago there were several posts about the administration at that time. I was actually shocked at the things that were said about the principal. Below is a current Facebook post that isn't necessarily negative or positive. The original post is from a student that graduated last May. The replies clearly show that positive changes are happening at MHS, and some past students hate they aren't here to witness it! As mentioned previously, I feel that having students analyze their current digital writing (this social media post for example) with Hicks' process is a step toward them becoming more purposeful and responsible in their digital writing.

For more on Hicks on teaching digital writing see Digital Writing, Digital Teaching. References: Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts Across Media and Genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Introduction Video Re-submission

Looking back at my introduction video for ED 529 Survey of Instructional Technology Leadership, I realize that my original video lacked a lot of the presentation techniques we've learned about in class. Although I feel that my video accomplished the goal of introducing myself to classmates, my first video was very simple. In my initial planning I considered the audience and the purpose but did not fully utilize the MAPS heuristic (as I was not aware of it yet!) The MAPS heuristic helps an author determine production elements to enhance their digital writing. According to Troy Hicks, author of Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts Across Media and Genres, there are five parts to the MAPS heuristic: mode, the genre of a text; media, the form in which a text is created; audience, the reader, listener, or viewer of the text, both intended and incidental; purpose, the action the author takes, in both an academic and a personal sense; and situation, the context for the writer herself or himself, as well as the demands of the writing task (Hicks, 2013, p. 21). After reading the chapters on audio and video texts, as well as our Google collaboration, I brainstormed ways that I could improve my original video for the re-submission.

As I began the process of recreating my introduction video, I decided to toss the majority of my original video. I followed Hicks' composition process for digital video texts which involves prewriting and drafting, revising and editing and publishing and assessing (Hicks, 2013, p. 114). In the prewriting and drafting stage, I decided against using my original video and audio but instead kept the wording and objective. Luckily I had a copy of my "script" from the original video so I was able to easily choose which wording I wanted to keep and what to omit.  In the revising and editing phase, I focused on the design elements of my new video. Hicks provides several elements to consider when editing digital video and I decided to use music, transitions, text, images, and time effects (Hicks, 2013, p. 111). After looking back through the audio and video collaborations from last week, I really wanted to try using time lapse software. In her collaboration example, Dr. Ray mentioned that VideoScribe has a free seven day trial. Once I checked out VideoScribe, I felt that it would be a great option to both experience time lapse video editing and revamp my introduction video.

The program itself is user friendly and it wasn't as hard as I thought it might be. Time lapse videos give the effect that they take lots of time and skill! Although the software wasn't difficult to navigate, it was pretty time consuming. I think that students would love using this program or one like it but I'm not sure that it would be feasible based on the amount of class time a project would take.

The publishing and assessing, however, wasn't quite as clear cut. It took about 30 minutes to export the video. I wanted to upload it to my YouTube channel so that I could easily embed the video here. I tried multiple times and although the option was there, it would not export to YouTube. I assumed that it had to do with the YouTube filter settings at school. At home, although I could access my account, I could not export the video because the free trial software is on my school computer. Therefore, I will have to wait until I am back and work to try to export again. *Note 11/6/14: The export to YouTube feature again would not work from my school computer (the computer that I had the trial on). Unfortunately, the export to video file is not an option for the free trial version. The only option that I could use was to export my video to a PowerPoint presentation. Then, I had to find a program that would host my PowerPoint presentation so that I could embed it here. I used Scribd. This was another new program to me and it was very user friendly! I was getting a little nervous that I failed big time and that all the time I spent on my VideoScribe was going to waste. Next time, I will make sure to read all the fine print when I am using a trial version (and start earlier)!

I hope that you enjoy my new time lapse video introduction!

Introduction Video by j2pritchett

References:

Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts Across Media and Genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Presentations That Are "Sticky" and Don't "Suck"

It was August 2005 and I was a freshman at the University of Montevallo. It was the first day of classes and I was a ball of nerves. In the weeks leading up to my first college class, I wasn’t nervous about the coursework or even living in a dormitory. I was overly excited about being a college student and looked forward to everything about college life. My nerves were solely because of one class:  COMS 101 Foundations of Oral Communication (Introduction to Public Speaking). Just the idea of giving a presentation in front of a room full of other students and a professor made me sick to my stomach. Not only did I make it through COMS 101 (not without some anxiety however), I ended up choosing a career where I am basically a public speaker every day of my life…

As an educator, creating presentations and public speaking are very familiar territory. Although I sometimes still get a little anxious speaking in front of a group, presenting in front of ninth graders is much less intimidating than colleagues or peers. In our line of work, it isn’t just about a lot of speaking; it’s about creating informative and appealing presentations to accompany our speaking.

Chapter four of Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts across Media and Genres focuses on crafting meaningful presentations. I found the most helpful concept in the chapter to be the suggestions or principles to make presentations that are “sticky” and that don’t “suck”. These suggestions are imperative for educators, especially for high school teachers, for reasons that go without needing explanation.

According to Hicks in Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts across Media and Genres, the “secret to effective presentations is an intentional focus on craft” (Hicks, 2013, p. 61). Both students and educators alike should concentrate on the core principles of contrast, repetition, alignment and proximity when constructing a presentation (Hicks, 2013, p. 61). Although some of the books that Hicks refers  to were written for the corporate world, their advice about presentations can easily translate to the world of education. These books all point out that there is more to a good presentation than just persuading or promoting a product. The two main factors that appear again and again are storytelling and stickiness (Hicks, 2013, p. 62). In fact, as Hicks later states, “Presentations are often a unique blend of telling a story, sharing information, and making an argument and presentation gurus remind us that storytelling and stickiness are factors that go into delivering an effective presentation” Hicks goes on to say, “It is not enough simply to share information or step logically through an argument; the presentation must contain some sense of passion and purpose” (Hicks, 2013, p. 67). It is a fine line between an informative presentation that is also effective in both “storytelling” and “stickiness” but as educators, this task is imperative for reaching our students.

See my presentation below for the six principles from Chip and Dan Heath’s text, Made to Stick:Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die and Joshua Johnson’s 10 Tips for Designing Presentations that Don’t Suck.

References:

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.

Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting Digital Writing: Composing Texts across Media and Genres, 61-63.

Image retrieved from http://image.slidesharecdn.com/howtocreatepresentationsthatdontsuck-140716053038-phpapp01/95/how-to-create-presentations-that-dont-suck-3-638.jpg?cb=1405542733

Johnson, J. (2010a, 2010b). 10 Tips for Designing Presentations that Don’t Suck.