Re: technology vision statements
EDTECH Editor-Beil
> X-From: Joe Frost <Joe....@phoenixchristian.org>
> http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm - The organization
> was seemingly disbanded in 2005 and it looks as if the data is from
> 1996...>
> Is there another, current, resource available?
Wow, that is sort of telling isn't it? 1996. Have things really not changed all
that much?
I think perhaps rather than some vision statement - that will be wordsmithed to
death by the technology enthusiasts - then proudly presented by district
leadership to the board - then put on the shelf for another 14 years - maybe
schools ought to focus on an assessment of degree of technology integration -
and then set some goals from this. I would like to start the list of what I
think a school functioning in the 21st century will have in palce - and then
hopefully others will chime in (or correct me if I am wrong):
Does the education technology integration staff person work through the
district tech services department - or has this person's position been fully
integrated into curriculum and instruction?
Is your director or superintendent of curriculum and instruction fully engaged
in developing strategies for integrating the use of technologies to assist
student learning and performance in core subject areas, professional skills,
and special education?
Does your district have objectives and a plan for how technologies will be used
as a learning and performance tool in these areas - or do you still have
isolated "technology learning objectives?"
Does your district have plans underway to use digital information resources and
phase out the acquisition of textbooks that are obsolete as soon as they are
published?
Do all teachers in your district have the ability to immediately override the
filter (with the exception of the CIPA adult sites category) so that the
well-known overblocking of filters is not a barrier to effective instruction -
and the motivation of teachers and students to use Internet resources?
Has your district provided very easy to use technology tools for teachers to
create internet infused lesson plans - including the ability to easily set up a
lesson web page with links to suggested resources?
Has your district set up a system that will allow teachers to establish white
lists of sites that will restrict students to only those sites for a particular
lesson (most appropriate for elementary students)?
Is there a remote access viewing or intelligent content monitoring system in
place - because your district fully recognizes that your high school students
can easily bypass the filter?
Have you established an approved manageable web 2.0 interactive environment for
your teachers to be able set up interactive blogs and wikis for instructional
activities?
Within this environment, has your district set up a professional online
community that is actively populated by all of the district staff - where
district instruction and management issues are discussed, where mentoring and
support are occurring, and with a location where teachers can share innovative
lesson plans?
Do you have an online classwork "portfolio" where every student can store his
or her classwork, access from any Internet location, send to a teacher, post to
a class blog, or contribute to a class wiki?
Are you using students to provide entry level technical support and assistance
to teachers?
Are you regularly evaluating your web data to ensure that the Internet is being
used for instructional purposes - not fun and games?
I would love to know what other questions you might ask to determine whether
your district is functioning in the 21st Century.
I have been active in the field of educational technology since the mid 80's. I
live in Eugene, where Dave Moursund started ISTE. I helped Lane County set up
the first county-wide Internet system for K-12 Internet service in the country
- and then helped with the planning for the Oregon Public Education Network. I
helped over 40% of Oregon districts (most of the smaller ones) create their
technology literacy plan. If you want to look at my guide for technology
planning, it is online here:
<http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/documents/transition.php> Contrary to the picture
of me on my site, I was on the Internet in 1993 - demographically, I think that
makes me a male techie geek. ;)
When I look at the data about how many teachers are actually actively using
technologies for instructional activities (productivity uses are of course now
pretty universal), I have not seen all that much change. It is my opinion that
if educational technology enthusiasts keep doing things the way they have since
the mid-80's nothing much is going to change - despite eloquent technology
vision statements. Sorry to push. But I think maybe a little push is necessary.
All best.
Nancy
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwil...@csriu.org
---
Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb
Please include your name, email address, and school or professional
affiliation in each posting.
To unsubscribe send the following command to: LIST...@H-NET.MSU.EDU
SIGNOFF EDTECH
EDTECH Editor-Beil
What I find fascinating about this comment and the one from Miles is that
both of these comments claim to be against creating a technology vision
and then go and offer great technology visions. The visions that have to
do with technology for technology's sake or, as Miles put it, motherhood
and apple pie so they can be paraded and put on a shelf for 14 years are
clearly useless. What if the visions looked something like this? What if
teachers in a school actually answered the guiding questions from
<http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm> and figured out what
could be better with instruction and how technology could help with that?
Imagine a school that adopted Nancy's statement below as its vision.
Imagine if the teachers and administration in that school actually
believed in it. Do you think things would change for the better? I
guarantee they would, and that is the power of vision. I'll admit that it
is rarely achieved and usually ends up with technology-centric uselessness
or vague feel-good statements, but it doesn't have to be like that. It
could be like Miles or Nancy's visions, including ways that technology can
really make a difference. Then, the rest of the plan can discuss ways of
achieving that vision.
--David
EDTECH Editor-Beil
> X-From: David Marcovitz <Ma...@loyola.edu>
> What I find fascinating about this comment and the one from Miles is that
> both of these comments claim to be against creating a technology vision and
> then go and offer great technology visions. The visions that have to do with
> technology for technology's sake or, as Miles put it, motherhood and apple
> pie so they can be paraded and put on a shelf for 14 years are clearly
> useless. What if the visions looked something like this? What if teachers in
> a school actually answered the guiding questions from
> <http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm> and figured out what
> could be better with instruction and how technology could help with that?
> Imagine a school that adopted Nancy's statement below as its vision. Imagine
> if the teachers and administration in that school actually believed in it. Do
> you think things would change for the better? I guarantee they would, and
> that is the power of vision. I'll admit that it is rarely achieved and
> usually ends up with technology-centric uselessness or vague feel-good
> statements, but it doesn't have to be like that. It could be like Miles or
> Nancy's visions, including ways that technology can really make a difference.
> Then, the rest of the plan can discuss ways of achieving that vision.
David,
Thanks for the great resource. The first question it starts with is "what is
your vision of learning" - which crystallizes what's missing from so much
technology planning. It's somewhat disheartening to notice that the resource
is dated 1996, and that the organization behind it is not longer around.
Sigh...
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra