Author: msemilymiller (Page 1 of 10)

Introduction

My overall perspective during the last two years while completing this master’s degree has mostly been, honestly, to survive. Let me tell you – being a new administrator, teaching almost full time, and working to complete a master’s degree all while during a global pandemic has been a challenge.  

As a new administrator, trying to balance the competing roles and responsibilities, I realized that what I needed was to do was find information that would help be build and develop more leadership skills. That is where my research started. As I read and learned more, I was able to apply it to my practice, get feedback, and try new things. I spent the first year as an administrator as more of an observer – noticing how things were done, learning the processes and protocols, and building connections. As I transitioned into my second year, I started to think about ways in which I could support my staff and students in more effective ways in regard to technology education.

Our little community school has gone through much administrative turnover in the past five years. The teachers, students, and families are an amazing group of people that really care. There are amazing things going on in all classrooms in regard to technology, however, I have noticed that there is little discussion and sharing of resources and information. I really wanted to find a way to support staff in building a more cohesive plan for technology understanding and use in our building. I started by exploring Change Theory (Fullan, 2007) and components that are important to have when facilitating change. I then looked at Technology Adoption Theories (Roger, 1962; Fishbein, 1967; Hall, 1979; Davis, 1989; Ajzen, 1991; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and identified components that made the most impact to individuals when implementing new technology. The information that I found was insightful and important to share with others. I took the information that I found about change and technology adoption and applied it to the creation of a document.

What I created was a template for effecting educational technology change within a school system. It is a Technology Plan Template that school teams can use to discuss and plan for educational change within their teams. It includes important components from technology plan exemplars as well as ‘Questions to Consider’ which link to outcomes in the literature.

How to Use

This document is meant for schools to reference and use as they navigate and plan for technology use and implementation. With the Creative Commons License, Attribution 4.0 International, you are free to:

Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially

I hope for this to be a living document. As I work through this with my own staff, I will update and change it to reflect what worked for us. In addition, I hope to engage schools across the country to use this document as a place to start with planning for technology change.

If you want to share out your experience with the document or ask questions, please reach out on social media (@MsEmilyMiller on Instagram and Twitter) or use the #techplanteam hashtag on Twitter.

Links

Click below for a link to a PDF version of the Technology Plan Template

School-Technology-Plan-Template

Click below for an editable Word Document of the Technology Plan Template

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitudes and the prediction of behaviour. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. Wiley.

Fullan, M. (2007). Change Theory as a Force for School Improvement. In J. M. Burger, C. F. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Education Leaders, 27–39. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_3

Hall, G.E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202-208

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

This assignment is written by Emily Miller and Lindsay Morton.

Part A

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent school closures around the world put huge pressure on the education system to pivot and quickly find an effective alternative to in-class instruction. During the time of remote teaching and learning, educators were trying to gather as many resources as they could and put together a comprehensive program, however, it was done as an emergency response. Student engagement is difficult at any time, let alone transitioning to fully online classes from Kindergarten to Grade 12. As time went on for remote learning, teachers noticed a decrease in student engagement as students interests and enthusiasm waned. Teachers are now worried about possible gaps in understanding as well as loss of academic growth during school closures and (optional) return to school. 

Comparing research on impacts of school closures due to extended absences, summer vacation as well as inclement weather, it shows that “students will likely (a) not have grown as much during the truncated 2019-2020 academic year and (b) will likely lose more of those gains due to extended time out of school. Based on our projections, students will return in fall 2020 with approximately 63-68% of the learning gains in reading relative to a typical school year and with 37-50% of the learning gains in math” (Kuhfeld, Soland, Tarasawa, Johnson, Ruzek, & Liu, 2020).  Access to parent and teachers support for learning during the school closure will produce a wider variation than what typical summer break would imply as well (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).

As a result, teachers need to find innovative ways to engage students in online learning to close the academic learning gap. One way to do so, is to consider personalized learning approaches to teaching and learning. It has become clear through years of research, “well designed personalized learning environments can transform both teacher and student behaviour and encourage students academic growth in ways that might not be possible” before (Basham, Hall, Carter, & Stahl, 2016). This was the impetus for the creation of a page focused on personalized learning on the collective blog site. 

People learn in a variety of different ways, however, there are some constants for all members of the human race. These consistencies are: learning informally and incidentally, through self-directed, intentional study, monitoring progress and adjusting strategies, when our objectives are explicit and get plenty of practice, through discovery, and are motivated to learn when the teacher connects personally with us (Redding, 2013). If teachers can find ways to build this into their in-person and digital classrooms, their students are more likely to have better academic success.

There are five foundational components of personalized learning for students, which build off of the ways in which people learn effectively. The first component is self-regulated learning environments. In order for students to develop independence in their learning journey, they need to develop self-regulation strategies of forethought, performance, and self reflection (Basham et al., 2016). The second is transparent and actionable data. This means that when data is collected from students’ academic achievements, it is being communicated in a clear and concise way within a reasonable timeline so students have an understanding of what they know (Basham et al., 2016). Alongside this, is the third component, personalized learning, which is continual feedback. Continual feedback is timely and allows for students to know how to improve and make a plan for where they need to go next with their learning (Basham et al., 2016). The fourth component is the integration of learner voice. Integrating a learners voice can be anything from having the students come up with their own inquiry questions to co-creating assessment criteria for assignments and activities (Basham et al., 2016). The final component is Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This means that when teachers are planning their learning activities, they are considering accessibility for all students (Basham et al., 2016). These foundational components helped formulate the sections of the blog for teachers to consider when planning. In the blog, the sections have been separated into strategies to support a variety of learners. These sections include: ELL, students needing math support, students needing literacy support, students with visual and auditory issues and considerations teachers should make when planning for the fall – communication, flexible content, pacing, Learning Management Systems (LMS), and assessment.

These foundational components were also taken into consideration when designing the personalized learning section of the blog. Each section includes different modes of communication – visual, video, auditory, and text. In addition, the content is flexible, editable, and is open for suggestions based on learners’ experiences and input. While viewing the content, there is no pressure to get things done all at once, so the pace is flexible and personalized. The platform and design is consistent across the blog which is acting as our learning management system. And finally, we have assessed, critiqued, and evaluated the content that we have included in the blog to ensure that it is well researched and applicable for teachers transitioning into the fall teaching term. 

Part B

According to Patrick, Kennedy and Powell (2013), “personalized learning means tailoring learning for each learner’s interests, strengths, and needs. This approach encourages flexibility to support mastery and enables learners to influence how, what, when, and where they learn” (Basham et al., 2016).  It is not a new concept or idea; the personalized learning theories of today are heavily influenced by educational philosophy from the Progressive Era – especially John Dewey – with a focus on experimental, child centered, social learning, and preparing students for a changing world (Redding, 2013).

 

The idea of personalized learning requires a fundamental shift in the way we think about education as teachers and learners. A personalized learning approach not only “requires a shift not only in the design of schooling (i.e. time, curriculum, and instructional delivery methods), but also in how educators view and use technologies” (Redding, 2013). The increase in access to technology and abundance of platforms and applications, has made personalized learning online more realistic for teachers and students. It is something worth considering and exploring as research has found that “both learners with and without disabilities can be successful in these personalized settings. In fact, there is some indication that learners with disabilities cannot only be successful but thrive in personalized learning environments” (Basham et al., 2016). 

 

References

Basham, J.D., Hall, T.E., Carter, R.A., & Stahl, W.M. (2016). An Operationalized Understanding of Personalized Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416660835

 

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. EdWorking Paper, 20-226. Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University https://doi.org/10.26300/cdrv-yw05 

 

Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended and competency education. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

 

Redding, S. (2013). Getting personal: The promise of personalized learning. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on innovations in learning (pp. 113-129). http://www.centeril.org/

 

Additional Resources

Pane, J., Steiner, E., Baird, M., & Hamilton, L. (2015). Continued Progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1365.html

 

Redding, S. (2013). Through the Student’s Eyes: A perspective on personalized learning and practice guide for teachers. Center for Innovations in Learning 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558042.pdf 

Today in our EDCI 532 course we spent some time in small groups comparing and contrasting K-12 curriculum and looking primarily through two lenses – indigenization  and digitization of curriculum.

Here are the links to each of the Provinces and Territories curriculum:

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Quebec

Ontario

Newfoundland and Labrador

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Prince Edward Island

Yukon

Northwest Territories

Nunavut

Here are some of the overarching ideas that came out of the sharing and discussions today:

• provinces/territories are at varying levels of including and integrating indigenous content and supports for technology to enhance education
• BC is definitely ahead of the game with their ‘new’ curriculum document(s), digital literacy framework, and First Peoples Principles of Knowledge resource
• they seem to all follow Tyler’s Model of Curriculum Development
  • Determine the objectives of the province (what content is important)
  • Developing learning experiences that help students achieve the objectives
  • Organize the experiences (modeling? writing? etc.)
  • Evaluation of the objectives (how do the students demonstrate their mastery/achieved the objective)

As came up in class conversation yesterday, this seems common knowledge to us. This is because we do not know any better and is ‘how it has always been done’ – at least in this part of the world. Some  wonderings that continue to circle around my head these days are:

1. How is curriculum developed in the third world?
2. How are teachings determined/shared/assessed in different cultures?
3. Is there much research into these things and integrating into how we do things in BC?

If you have any experiences or thoughts on any of these questions I would love to hear them and engage in conversation!