Archive for 3.4 Policies and Regulations

EDTECH 501: Technology Use Planning Overview

The National Educational Technology Plan (2010) offers a non-prescriptive means of achieving the goals set forth by our nation’s educational leaders. Using it as a referance point provides a common lens through which to view our own objectives and progress towards those goals. In our district, technology planning committee members print out key segments to research and discuss at committee meetings. This blog features the main categories within this post to define how technology planning, implementation, and evaluation impact instruction and student learning.
Innovate and ScaleTeaching: Our district is miniscule. With 57 students in our junior/senior high school, technology offers students a competitive education that would be unavailable without synchronous and asynchronous online learning. Teachers are isolated in their subject areas, teaching six different flavors of their content area daily. Thanks to technology, the days of one person spewing forth knowlege are gone. From cutting-edge industry practices to details of ancient museum pieces, content delivery is supplmented with the vast resources of the Internet that brings a world of knowledge and ideas into the classroom.
Prepare and Connect: I am part of a team of instructional technology leaders made up of teachers, administrators, and other stake holders. Currently we are in the midst of developing a three-year tech plan to replace the existing plan that has met its useful life. Our past technology plan was designed for five years, as the State of Idaho had requested at the time. We have found it to be insufficient to address our expanding use of technology, even though it was beneficial in guiding our newly formed district in the path we are currently taking (our district is in its fifth year).
Infrastructure: Access and Enable: Previous to working in education, I worked in business management. One of the mantras of the day was to think/plan/act/evaluate with the end in mind. I believe that guideline rings true today. Even though we are designing a written technology plan, it’s the structure of our organization’s mission and vision statements that drives the adjustments needed when a new route or detour presents itself.
Assessment: Measure What Matters: Our committee recognizes that the planning stage is ongoing and needs flexibility as technological advances continually change the educational landscape. Because of this elasticity, we believe our tech plan should be designed for not longer than three years, which is in agreement with See (1992). I also am in agreement with See’s comment that “effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology.” Our committee strives to evaluate the effectiveness of current technological practices and endeavors to use technological and traditional methods to measure student achievement. The following example is how teachers in our dstrict have implemented student reponse pads, or “clickers.”
Productivity: Redesign and Transform After a committee determination that our district, teachers, and students would benefit from student response pads, we purchased a set for every classroom. The grant was written in such a manner that professional development for the integration of the devices was paramount to the technology. The first year, contracted trainers worked with teachers and teachers worked with one another redesigning their delivery and assessments to accomodate the devices. We experienced great success, with 75% of the teachers actively using their response pads and using the resulting data to steer their instruction. Students reported especially liking the instant feedback aspect of the systems. Three years later we have one teacher regularly using the response pads. What happened? Two key factors came into play resulting in technology without application: 1) administrative changes; 2) staff retirement, relocation, and replacing. The new staff does not have ownership in the decision, so they are reluctant to implement the devices because they do not see the added value. The unused clickers are waiting to shine, and Karen Roberts (1990) has provided me with 13 ways to bring them out of the storage closet and back into the hands of the students.
The National Education Plan (2010) and the articles provided at the National Center for Technology Planning have added insight and inspiration to the planning process that we are currently undertaking at our district.

Resources:
Robertson, K. (1990). PROMOTING TECHNOLOGY: 13 WAYS TO DO IT. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from National Center for Technology Planning: http://www.nctp.com/html/promoting_technology.cfm
See, J. (1992, May). Developing Effective Technology Plans. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from National Center for Technology Planning: http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from ed.gov: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

EDTECH501: APA 1.6 using Zotero and Google Scholar

I have found the best thing since EndNote in a combo punch, and I am shamelessly endorsing them for the scholarly as well as those who are, well..less drawn to scholarly activities.

I eagerly partnered with Zotero for the software’s ability to organize my myriad wanderings and ponderings on the world wide web.  Google Scholar is another lens that brings to focus the articles I need to extract the information I am looking for – in this case, mobile learning. I am including five correct APA citations as examples of the genius of Zotero. For a quick look at the FireFox plug-in, I chose to embed Arial’s tutorial. She has a few distracting “ums” and “uhs,” but her style captured my interest.

References

Adkins, S. S. (2008). Ambient Insight. The US Market for Mobile Learning Products and Services: 2008-2013 Forecast and Analysis (p. pp. 5). Retrieved from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/AmbientInsight_2008-2013_US_MobileLearning_Forecast_ExecutiveOverview.pdf

Enabling Mobile Learning (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/EnablingMobileLearning/157976

Masters, K. (2005). Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age. Low-key m-learning: a realistic introduction of m-learning to developing countries. Budapest, Hungary, April 2005. Retrieved from http://www.fil.hu/mobil/2005/Masters_final.pdf

Mobile Learning History. (2010).Mobile Learning Community. Retrieved from http://trainandgo.blogspot.com/2010/01/mobile-learning-in-cortina.html

Moore, J. (2009). Proceedings of IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning. A portable document search engine to support off-line mobile learning. Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17441/

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Plagiarism; Resist the Temptation!

Plagiarism (Latin plagiare “to kidnap”)

 

Plagiarism
by: brimstef

http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/12517753/plagiarism

This video (Brimacomb, 2011) covers using someone else’s work as my own (in this case “buying” a paper from a website), copy and pasting without citations, and using my own prior work without instructor permission. As these two college students talk about whether or not to go to the beach with friends, I incorporated something that I learned on this project. I was intrigued by the root (Latin “kidnap”), and found it to be useful in the script. Xtranormal is a new medium for me. I was impressed by the animation, but found the text readers somewhat difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I was excited to see how my video-graphics students became immediately engaged. I wish I could accumulate points rather than purchase them. It would make the experience more enjoyable. I used the Salmon River Joint School District Trustees’ Policy Manual (2009) as my source rather than the BSU Code of Conduct (2011), because I want to embed my video onto my high school’s home page to emphasize the three aspects of plagiarism.

REFERENCES:
Boise State University (2011). Student Conduct Program – Code of Conduct – Article 4. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from Boise State University Code of Conduct: http://osrr.boisestate.edu/scp-codeofconduct-article4/

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from XtraNormal: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12517753/plagiarism

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism Video Discussion Forum. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from EDTECH Boise State EDTECH 501-4175 (FA11): http://edtech.mrooms.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=28525

Salmon River Joint School District Trustees. (2009, April 1). Policy 3202. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from Salmon River Joint School District 243: http://www.jsd243.org/2032101210144059403/lib/2032101210144059403/3202.pdf

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 541: Will the Wall Come Down?

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA, 1999 (106th Congress (Senate), 1999)) is a federal law enacted by Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. Unfortunatelty, Web 2.0 venues demand something that private and public sectors alike share; walled gardens. The Children’s Internet Protection Act mandates public schools have in place a filter to prevent predators from accessing impressionable children, or from children accessing the wealth of pornography and other harmful content.  According to the Pew Internet and American Life project,  learners are connected while not in school, with more than 80% of participants reporting they sleep with a cellphone by the bed. Today’s typical teen sends approximatelly 1500 text messages monthly. Mobile devices are closing the gap in the digital divide by giving less priviledged members of society access to the Internet. The rising popularity of social networking sites emphasizes that today’s students are social learners (Bull, 2010, pg 28-29).

Rather than pushing against the tide, schools can embrace the benefits of social networking technology in a safe and controlled environment designed specifically for the unique needs of K-12 education. These tools help support diversity and the development of communities through safe user friendly platforms that encourage dialogue and the sharing of perspectives, ideas and events.  Such environments can be found with educational vendors such as Gaggle.net. (2011)

A brief skim or an in-depth review of any day’s current events quickly reminds us of the myriad ways we share our home planet with others who–despite our differences in culture, ethnicity, and demographics–are likely to share foundational values of stewardship, spirituality, democracy, diversity, and language. Niel Postman (1995) identifies those values as “the five inclusive human narratives” (pg 144). 

Great and simple minds struggle to answer the ethical dilemmas which confront us at every angle, giving rise to questions such as those that Walter Parker, Akira Ninomya, and John Cogan (1999) framed in regard to societal equity and fairness; balancing privacy with open access to information; meeting human needs in the face of a fragile environment; coping with issues relating to the growing population, genetic engineering, and poverty; keeping local values while developing shared global values; and making ethics-based decisions on the issues?

In their Learning and Leading with Technolgoy article “Save the World with Web 2.0” Lauren Cifuentes, Zahira Merchant, and Omer Faruk Vural (November, 2010) maintain that human narratives merge well with the ethical questions to form an “activity framework for preparing students for global citizenship (pg 34).” Sample activities include having learners research the importance and impact of an issue prior to promoting their cause on social networks, blogs, wikis, global networking, and other Web 2.0 venues to raise awareness and save the world.(Lauren Cifuentes, 2010). When browsing for content enrichment, teachers find similar activities, but are stifled by policies and procedures that prohibit most Web 2.0 applcations.  When will the wall come down?

 

RESOURCES:

106th Congress (Senate). (1999, January 19). S.97.AS. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.97.IS:

Bull, G. (2010). The Always-Connected Generation. (K. Conley, Ed.) Learning & Leading with Technology , 38 (3), 28-29.

Lauren Cifuentes, Z. M. (2010). Save the World with Web 2.0. Learning & Leading with Technology , 34-35.

Social Learning. (2011). Retrieved June 28, 2011, from Gaggle.net: https://gaggle.net/home/gaggle-apps/social-learning/#features

Leave a Comment