Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age- wk. 3

     This week I'm working to organize my thoughts and refine my ideas about helping meet the technology needs in our district, starting with the creation of a Technology Integration Plan. Through conversation with our Technology Specialist, I have discovered that our district does not have such a plan and hasn't (to her knowledge) since she joined the district in 2019. In hopes of finding a little direction, I perused our state education website only to find the state is no longer requiring school districts to develop Technology plans. In anticipation of creating a plan from nothing, I searched for and found a Technology Plan from our state ("Oklahoma City Public Schools Technology Plan 2014-2015") for reference.  To ascertain the practicality of that document, I am comparing and contrasting the information and framework of that plan with that found in the "District/School Technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success" document. 

     The Oklahoma City Public Schools (OCPS) Technology Plan identifies 13 specific components that align with the previously required minimum requirements for a good technology plan, as suggested by the Oklahoma State Department of Education:

1. Strategies for Improving Academic Achievement and Teacher Effectiveness/Needs Assessment
2. Goals
3. Steps to Increase Accessibility
4. Promotion of Curricula and Teaching Strategies That Integrate Technology
5. Professional Development
6. Technology Type and Costs/Timeline
7. Coordination with Other Resources
8. Integration of Technology with Curricula and Instruction
9. Innovative Delivery Strategies
10. Parental Involvement
11. Collaborations with Adult Literacy Programs
12. Accountability Measures
13. Supporting Resources

The "District/School Technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success" document specifically addresses 

1. Goals
2. Professional Development
3. Technology Funding (Budget) and Timeline/Schedule
4. Coordination of Resources
5. Desired Academic Results/Tech Integration into Curriculum
6. Methods of Evaluation (Accountability)

     Despite looking vastly different, both documents share many of the same focuses. Both plans are multi-year models and include a section where the technology planning committee members are listed (along with their stakeholder role-OKCPS) so it is easy to ensure stakeholders from a wide variety of groups are included in the creation of the plan. They both identify a vision/mission statement that seeks to explain how technology will impact learning in their respective district. They each include clearly defined goals, a section for budget considerations and timelines, and a section for professional development. Additionally, both plans address resources, considerations for tech integration into the curriculum, and accountability.

      While the plans appear to be pretty much in line with one another, the OKCPS plan seems to have a broader focus which encompasses strategies for improving academic achievement and teacher effectiveness, as well as parental involvement, steps to increase accessibility, collaboration with other programs, and content delivery strategies. Further, it specifically includes a Needs Assessment and reference to the ISTE standards whereas the District/School Technology Plan Template (DSTPT) does not.  Conversely, the DSTPT appears to go into greater detail with regard to certain components, specifically budget items and funding/grant opportunities. 

     When pondering Ed Tech integration, Gura (2018, p.58) states, "...the most advantageous condition for success and avoidance of counterproductive efforts will involve clarity through common understanding," and I believe this to be true. For that reason, I believe, when developing the framework for my own integration plan, I will use a combination of the two plans I compared/contrasted.  The plan will obviously be developed with input from a variety of stakeholders, include a shared vision, contain clearly defined goals, budget and timeline considerations, and address professional development as well as accountability and evaluation considerations. 

References:

District/School technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success https://www.uslegalforms.com/jsfiller-desk15/?             requestHash=ea0f9346aba2aeac65baa76ba11ac7838e33a36c5dd98504b08aeaeaf20e78ed   &ref=https://www.uslegalforms.com&projectId=969677596&loader=tips&replace_gtm=false&    et=as#17b242fa7b5745caf30dd1a61265dad2

*(In the vein of complete transparency, I feel like I downloaded and printed this resource from the documents shared on our course BlackBoard.  However, when attempting to locate the original source, I came up empty. Therefore, I am crediting the source I found online as above.)

Gura, M. (2018). The EdTech Advocate's Guide to Leading Change in Schools. International  Society for Technology in Education. https://reader.yuzu.com/books/9781564846471

 OKC Tech Integration Plan https://www.okcps.org/cms/lib/OK01913268/Centricity/Domain/2015%20OKCPS%20Tech%20Plan.pdf

 

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age wk. 2

    Hey, Everyone! So this week my assignment is to begin to conceptualize and plan for the Technology Integration project I'll be creating as a final requirement for this course.  In keeping with the "Call to Action" I put together in EDUC 5353, my audience for this project remains the Ed Tech department leaders and district leadership. When considering exactly who the stakeholders are I'm choosing to include, I considered who will be most affected by the changes made as a result of my plan.  First and foremost, I feel like it is imperative to include teachers in this process. Helping teachers make the most of the technology they have access to and make the soundest instructional decisions when integrating technology will greatly benefit the 21st-century learners our district is molding. Who better than the ones actually charged with molding 21st-century learners to communicate what they need and what works best for them?  Their choices and behaviors directly impact the students with whom they work. Next, I chose to include students as stakeholders because, as 21st-century learners, they are looking to teachers to help prepare them for their next steps as life-long learners. Finally, I chose to include administrators as they affect the success of any change in their building. As leaders, their willingness to embrace or "buy in" to an idea speaks volumes to their staff and can either help them see the benefits or could send the message that it's just another thing to do. O'Hair's K20 model, described by Williams et al., (2008), begins with this in mind as they being their Phase 1 implementation with district administrators and superintendents, relying on these individuals to eventually foster whole school change through a shared vision. This shared vision (and subsequently, shared decision-making experiences) increases trust levels and risk-taking among the stakeholders (Williams et al., 2008).

    Currently, our district is in a newly formed partnership with K20. Thus far, we've participated in several community surveys which included representatives from a variety of groups: administrators, community members, teachers, students, and parents. Based on the data collected, a committee was formed with representatives from each of these stakeholder groups and brainstorming sessions began. This steering committee has put together a Continuous Strategic Improvement Plan (CSIP) and identified goals and objectives for our district for the next five years.  Among those objectives are two factors that I addressed in my "Call to Action" that are contributing to our current digital divide: improving student-centered use of technology and enhancing staff through training and development. For these reasons and others, I feel like it makes the most sense for me to use O'Hair's K20 model of change as the basis for my Technology Integration plan. 

     Williams, et al., (2008) identifies one of the primary strategies within O'Hair's K20 model as the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).  Our district has for several years required weekly PLCs within each building so that is a practice with which we are very familiar. Taking advantage of this already well-established process will signal to our teachers that this is not going to be "just another thing" but rather a sustainable commitment and an opportunity to learn and grow together as a team through collaboration. Another practice this model allows me to capitalize on is that of continuous professional development as a strategy for change. While we have fallen short of that in recent years (Covid related?), O'Hair's model will provide structured, frequent, sustainable professional development to support the integration of technology and provide networking opportunities for teachers and staff (Williams, et al., 2008).      

     To determine the degree of inequity occurring within our digital divide, I have created a survey (adapted from others) for members of each of the administrator, teacher, and student stakeholder groups in my building.  My plan is to use the information and data garnered from that survey to identify specific areas of need and areas of strength to use in my integration plan. Hopefully, the data revealed in the survey will help me write a Technology Integration Plan that, along with my "Call to Action,"  will help me lay the groundwork for becoming an agent of change for our district. In addition to participating in my Needs Assessment survey, my administrator and I had an informal discussion regarding my expectations for the Tech Integration Plan. She had some valuable insight to share as she serves on the steering committee for our K20 partnership. She mentioned that factors such as scope, funding, and commitment of time will all be influenced by the shared vision created through guidance from our K20 partners. This, again, makes O'Hair's model for change an excellent fit for my plan for our district. 

References:

Williams, L. A., Atkinson, L.C., Cate, J. M., O'Hair, M. J., (2008)Mutual support between learning community development and technology integration:  Impact on school practices and student achievement.  Theory Into Practice, 47, pp.294-302.

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age wk. 1

    So, after the challenges Covid19 brought to teachers and students,  I found myself taking a more critical look at the state of education. We weren't prepared to meet the needs of our students "virtually" during that time and scrambled to make sense of the chaos we suddenly found ourselves in. Students and teachers had experience and were comfortable using technology for socialization and connectivity (i.e., TikToc, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) but we hadn't, for the most part, embraced the use of technology on a consistent basis for academic purposes. And therein lay the problem. It became pretty apparent to me, as I'm sure it was to every other teacher in the world, that education was about to see some very drastic but necessary changes. And that's the moment I realized I wanted to be a part of that change. Hence, my current pursuit of a degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in Educational Technology.

     Likening recent advances in technology to the past, our text refers to this new period of change as the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" (Sheninger, 2019). The author points out that the manner in which technology is utilized for education is changing and as a result will affect the way our students learn. As evidenced by the challenges we faced attempting to teach virtually during the first few months of the pandemic, our schools are not keeping up with the rapid changes we're seeing in technology. And that, according to Sheninger (2019), is directly affecting our learners and causing a disconnect between schools and students. Sheninger mentions several tools at teachers' disposal, with which many teachers are already familiar.  However, the way we use those tools requires a more purposeful, thoughtful integration. Gura (2018) suggests that although we may have the technology resources and support to create 21st Century, student-friendly learning environments, we are far from possessing a comprehensive understanding about how to do it. Likewise, with regards to integrating technology, Sheninger (2019) suggests that, "The calling now for all educational systems and leaders is to empower students to learn in powerful and meaningful ways like never before" (Sheninger, 2019, p.6).

      Rashid and Asghar's article acknowledges that the landscape of education is changing but asks the question if students' engagement with technology actually aids or hinders their academic performance. Their study, similar to the two texts we're reading, identified student engagement, technology use, and self-directed learning as impacting students' academic performance. The part that seems to be missing in much of the tech integration currently taking place is the level of use and students' self-directed learning part. While the assumption that technology actually advances students' academic performance hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we do know that students' learning needs have changed and we need to change the way we teach. My goal is to help teachers move from the ways of the past, embrace and develop a better understanding of how to integrate tech in authentic and meaningful ways, and teach for the future...our future.  

"Our students have changed radically, Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."

-Mark Prensky (2001, p. 1)

References:

Gura, M. (2018). The EdTech Advocate's Guide to Leading Change in Schools. International Society for Technology in Education. https://reader.yuzu.com/books/9781564846471.  

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612.

Sheniger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times 2nd Edition.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin. ISBN: 9781544350837