Swot Analysis-Schuster

ITEC 7410/EDL 7105 SWOT Analysis Template for Technology Planning Needs Assessment
What is the current reality in our school?

Name: Brittnay Schuster Semester: Spring 2019
ESSENTIAL CONDITION ONE: Effective Instructional Uses of Technology Embedded in Standards-Based,

Student-Centered Learning
ISTE Definition: Use of information and communication technology (ICT) to facilitate engaging approaches to learning.
Guiding Questions:
 How is technology being used in our school? How frequently is it being used? By whom? For what purposes?
 To what extent is student technology use targeted toward student achievement of the Georgia Learning Standards (GPSs,
CCSs)?
 To what extent is student technology use aligned to research-based, best practices that are most likely to support student
engagement, deep understanding of content, and transfer of knowledge? Is day-to-day instruction aligned to research-based
best practices?
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Teachers are clamoring for MVHS is currently short on Through our developing Reluctant teachers
more technology the number of teachers who are technology plan, teachers will Server capacities
truly ready to transform their be able to start with the basics Number of devices
More technology-experienced classroom and transcend the expectations Digital divide
teachers are starting to fill the
building A teacher who has a lot of New teachers bring a Veteran teachers who refuse
technology ideas that we may refreshing perspective and new to adopt new technology-rich
Some teachers use technology not be able to fulfill due to our ideas on how to use instructional strategies
every day to increase student funding technology to increase student
engagement and achievement achievement Teacher’s lack of use of
through a variety of formative The majority of teachers do not technology is a threat because
assessments, differentiation, utilize technology on a daily Last year the principal bought if we cannot, as a school,
and remediation basis. The primary use is several carts of Chromebooks show the need for more
typically for an assessment and many people still don’t technology, we run the risk of
Some teachers (unknowingly) even know we have them. being underfunded to make
use research based strategies to Even some of the teachers who those improvements
support student engagement are using the best practices can As our veteran staff members
through the use of technology sometimes get into a cycle of leave, we have the opportunity Even some of the newer
by focusing on student-centered predictability that students to place innovation at the top teachers come from an area or
or flipped instruction resent of our list for potential school where technology did
candidates not play a large role.
Summary of Results/Conclusions:
Technology is used somewhat regularly within MVHS but it is not always used in the most effective way. For the most part, the
technology we have is used for testing or typing research papers. Even though the aforementioned methods are used most
frequently, there are some early adopter teachers who are helping to promote effective use of instructional technology through
allowing observations and providing model lessons. . I think that some technology is used for student achievement, and that is
personally my focus.
However, there are not a lot of teachers who connect technology integration and student engagement because they choose to use the
same strategies they have been using for years. According to the ISTE diagnostic included as Appendix A, the element most lacking
at MVHS is Skilled Personnel. This makes sense because we are still in the process of achieving more buy-in from all teachers,
regardless of their experience, age, or skill. According to the 2018 ISTE Policy Brief, “Correct implementation of education
technology is key […]. Effective professional development for teacher in the integration of technology into instruction is necessary
to support student learning” (ISTE 2018).
Currently, the biggest threat to proper implementation of instructional technology is the reluctant adoption from veteran teachers.
As discussed above, the key to proper implementation is effective professional development, but “in studies examining decisions
about technology adoption, older adults reported lower levels of perceived ease of use and more negative attitudes” (McCausland
et. al. 2015). In this situation, we must figure out a way to close the gap on technology integration in a way that veteran teachers
don’t feel threatened or hold on to negative attitudes. My preferred approach to this situation is to establish partnerships with
teachers who are technology savvy with those who are experts in the content. Establishing this balanced dynamic should reduce the
negative assumptions that some veteran teachers have about technology integration.
Recommendations from Gap Analysis:
I think that the approach to getting reluctant teachers to adopt the use of instructional technology to increase student engagement
and achievement is to address traditional instructional strategies and to generate connections between instructional strategies and
instructional technology. According to Revere and Kovach (2011), “the traditional approach to instructor led pedagogy is quickly
being refuted in light of continuing research in student centered learning. This research suggests ‘learning depends wholly on what
the student does; (and) only indirectly on what the teacher or university does.’” Ultimately, instructional technology must be used
within the context of effective teaching strategies (such as student-centered learning). If teachers are expected to use research-based
practices then training and development must start there before they are likely to adopt technology integration at the same time.
Revere and Kovach (2011) suggests that “Conventional wisdom suggests that engaged and relational learning is far more likely to
grow out of a learner-centered (rather than a teacher-centered) instructional environment.” Therefore, if we start with the
instructional strategy, we may be able to initiate more buy-in from reluctant teachers,
Supporting Sources:
Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGED LEARNING A Meaningful Synthesis for
Educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-
sgwi.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=66173718&site=ehost-live
McCausland, T., King, E., Bartholomew, L., Feyre, R., Ahmad, A., & Finkelstein, L. (2015). The Technological Age: The Effects
of Perceived Age in Technology Training. Journal of Business & Psychology, 30(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-
9390-5
ISTE 2018 Policy Brief
ESSENTIAL CONDITION TWO: Shared Vision
ISTE Definition: Proactive leadership in developing a shared vision for educational technology among school personnel, students,
parents, and the community.
Guiding Questions:
 Is there an official vision for technology use in the district/school? Is it aligned to research-best practices? Is it aligned to
state and national visions? Are teachers, administrators, parents, students, and other community members aware of the
vision?
 To what extent do teachers, administrators, parents, students, and other community members have a vision for how
technology can be used to enhance student learning? What do they believe about technology and what types of technology
uses we should encourage in the future? Are their visions similar or different? To what extent are their beliefs about these
ideal, preferred technology uses in the future aligned to research and best practice?
 To what extent do educators view technology as critical for improving student achievement of the GPS/CCSs? To preparing
tomorrow’s workforce? For motivating digital-age learners?
 What strategies have been deployed to date to create a research-based shared vision?
 What needs to be done to achieve broad-scale adoption of a research-based vision for technology use that is likely to lead to
improved student achievement?
The shared vision for MVHS Administration has been on We have a solid technology Some administrators do not
is currently in the development different pages for the past team and the backing of new value technology as much as
stage administrators others
year about the technology
The shared vision that is being vision We have been building
developed is constantly being partnerships in the community Too often, testing overshadows
reviewed next to the local The shared vision is aligned to procure funding and effective technology use
standards with county goals, which can opportunities for students
sometimes take away from
The shared vision is guided by local school needs We have recently established a
researched-based best practices schedule/plan to work with a Educators don’t trust that the
These best practices are not county representative to district will “stick with it”
always enough to convince emphasize the best practices because they are notorious for
teachers to try something new frequent changes
The shared vision for MVHS is currently in the developmental stage. The first stage of development was to organize a team of
educators with a variety of experiences with technology and from a variety of educational backgrounds. Educators at MVHS have
varying opinions about technology integration; some teachers genuinely feel that technology integration (of any kind) has little to
no effect on student achievement. There are many reasons why they have these opinions, but I think one important distinction to
make is that “more than a third of middle school math students regularly used a computer for dill and practice (Boser 2013). In this
situation, technology is not being used in an effective way. It is being used in the same what that math drills can be conducted on
paper. However, it will become the responsibility of the technology team to provide more information and persuade reluctant
teachers to opening up about their hang-ups. According to the ISTE Diagnostic tool, included as Appendix A, the shared vision
essential condition is one of the weaker areas for MVHS. I think this is partially due to the stage of development the shared vision
currently sits. I think another reason for this is that there is so much disparity between teachers who believe in potential impacts of
instructional technology and those who do not.

It is important for the technology leaders in the school to model the need to effectively integrate technology, not as a separate thing,
but as a means to accomplish what they are already trying to do. According to Ulrich Boser (2013), “technology holds significant
potential when it comes to improving classroom practices and encouraging more effective learning.” The important preface to make
before we can establish the potential instructional technology holds, is that in order to have effective learning, there must be
effective teaching. In order to create more adopters, emphasis for this change must be a priority to administrators. Boser (2013)
concludes, “part of the problem is that schools and districts often see technology as something to add to their current approach
rather than something that might change their current approach. In other words, schools are not using technology differently.” Thus,
if we keep only using technology in the same way, teachers will only keep teaching the same way. Part of the process of creating
this shared vision has been to get administration on the same page about the ways in which they should see technologies being used.
To accomplish this, part of the shared vision that is being developed is a professional learning plan including collaboration and
observation to help bridge the gap between teacher proficiencies within the context of instructional technology. We plan to utilize
experts in the building to disseminate the best practices and tools.
Supporting Sources:
2018 ISTE Policy Brief
Boser, U. (2013, June 14). Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck? Retrieved March 14,
2019.
ESSENTIAL CONDITION THREE: Planning for Technology
ISTE Definition: A systematic plan aligned with a shared vision for school effectiveness and student learning through the infusion
of ICT and digital learning resources.
Guiding Questions:
 Is there an adequate plan to guide technology use in your school? (either at the district or school level? Integrated into
SIP?)
 What should be done to strengthen planning?
 In what ways does your school address the needs of diverse populations in the school or district to include how race,
gender, socio-economic, and geographic diversity giving consideration to how these factors commonly affect K-12
students’ access to school and beyond-school access to high-speed Internet, modern computing devices, software,
knowledgeable technology mentors, culturally-relevant digital content, and other affordances critical to technology literacy
acquisition.
We have established a There is no sacred time for Administrators are beginning Teachers, who make up the
technology team that will be technology team members to to work together to provide technology team, are currently
used for technology planning meet coverage and time for the not incentivized
technology team to collaborate
There is a passionate Most often, even when the
technology leader in each teacher is passionate about The principal at MVHS is Teachers who are willing to
department instructional technology, he or incrementally allocating more give up their time may not
she may not have the money to provide resources for continue to do so if they do not
see impacts of their efforts
appropriate resources to passionate teachers who
demonstrate that demonstrate a need and want
Much like the shared vision, MVHS is in the process of planning for technology. Right now, I am working with a county
representative to establish a plan for more teachers to have more access to technology, and for teachers to have better opportunities
to observe and collaborate to achieve that shared vision. First, we intend to generate buy-in to make that vision a truly shared vision
and not one that is projected upon them. One area that has been lacking until recently is funding. According to the 2018 ISTE
Policy Brief, “ISTE recommends that all states have a dedicated funding stream for educational technology that is tied to sustained
high-quality professional development as well as investment in hardware, software, and infrastructure” (pp.4). Although these
funding streams exist at the county and state levels, at the local school level there is a lot of competition for funding in a variety of
areas that receive more community exposure and are sometimes presumed more important or valuable. This predicament works
both ways, however. If the community does not see the value of instructional technology, supplemental funding is used elsewhere
yet, simultaneously, a lack of funding for technology planning limits what can be done to increase that exposure. This year, there
has been a significant push to provide students opportunities to experience filed experience in the overarching industry of media
arts. However, this is an after school program that costs $70 and require students to commit to weekend events. While this is a great
opportunity, it does not address the needs of students in low SES environments. If this is something that the school wants to
continue, they need to figure out a way to sustain the program through a program during school hours. This will give those without
the means of funding or transportation to explore the media arts industry in ways they may not be able to in other situations.
One way to address the aforementioned issue of funding is to conduct a true return on investment study. Boser (2013) reports that
“we found no evidence that any state had conducted a large-scale technology return-on-investment, or ROI study. […] It appears
that states instead collect data only in the presence of technology such as the number of schools with high-speed internet access.”
The danger of not studying this return on investment is that schools can use irrelevant measures to deem a school or student
successful or unsuccessful. Boser (2013) continues to discuss this issue when he states “Many states, for instance, use seat-time
requirements for classes—time spend sitting at a desk listening to a teacher—to determine whether a student is ready to graduate
high school.” This “seat-time” measure would have been adequate decades ago when the intention of education was to produce
workers who did what they were told without thinking about it. However, today, we are attempting to create a new generation of
thinkers and problem solvers, so we cannot continue to measure success by things like “seat-time.” Instead, we must measure
success through evidence of creative problem-solving, critical thinking, computational thinking, collaboration, project execution,
etc.
Supporting Sources:
2019.
ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOUR: Equitable Access (Specifically Low SES and gender groups)
ISTE Definition: Robust and reliable access to current and emerging technologies and digital resources.
Guiding Questions:
 To what extent do students, teachers, administrators, and parents have access to computers and digital resources necessary
to support engaging, standards-based, student-centered learning?
 To what extent is technology arrange/distributed to maximize access for engaging, standards-based, student-centered
learning?
 What tools are needed and why?
 To what extent are strategies needed to address equity issues among Low SES and gender groups? What are examples of
strategies that would benefit your school/district? (required)
 Do students/parents/community need/have beyond school access to support the shared vision for learning?
Very few students, from all We do not have enough External resources are Many students and families do
SES backgrounds, have limited funding or devices to provide available to students and not notify the school that they
access access to students who don’t families who do not have need assistance.
have it equitable access
All teachers and administrators Teachers and administrators Students are provided a variety Most students who need to use
have equitable access as they have more access to of access to various devices the technology outside of
are provided with a computer technology than the students and equipment throughout the school hours do not have the
and wireless connection they are trying to teach, using school day necessary transportation to do
that technology so.
Some teachers can be very

unsympathetic towards
students without equitable
access
MVHS is a relatively affluent school; the ISTE diagnostic (appendix A) shows that equitable access is one of the highest met
essential condition. However, this is problematic because that means the number of students who do not have equitable access are
more likely to slip through the cracks. One significant problem is that often times, teachers are unsympathetic towards students who
report that they could not do an assignment because they do not have computer or internet access at home. I understand why they
are reluctant, because many students, who do have access, will lie to their teachers to get out of doing an assignment. This is
especially troubling because students who have equitable access are then taking advantage of the disadvantage students without
equitable access experience. This is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Gayl Bowser and Joy Zabala
(2012) emphasize the danger of these inequities by stating “if the haste to produce marketable digital materials results in little or no
attention to broad usability, it is possible that the move to digital materials will create new barriers to access, participation and
achievement for these students.” While effective use of instructional technology has clear benefits, if the digital divide is not
eliminated, we are increasing the gap between those who have and those who do not. Taking a back seat approach to closing this
gap is not an option. According to the 2018 ISTE Policy Brief, “research has shown that minority students, those from poorer
neighborhoods, and students who live in either inner-city or rural areas (but not suburban) tend to have less access to computers, the
internet, and educational software. Thus they reliant on schools, libraries, and community centers for their hardware, software, and
internet access” (pp. 8). A report published by Vanessa McCray (2018) of the Atlanta Journal Constitution compared Gwinnett
County Public Schools to school districts like it across the state and county, she states, “Not every district has made a priority of
giving students a computer to take home. Gwinnett County, the state’s largest system with about 180,000 students, decided ‘there
wasn’t a strong enough need for it for us to put that kind of funding behind it.”
The longer the equity gap in technology access continues, the further we separate cultures and individuals that need to have the
same opportunities. Therefore, equitable access to technology is no longer just an issue of access—it is a social justice issue like
many of the social justice issues we have seen that have historically shaped the way schools operate. eSchool News refers to this as
the “Matthew Effect—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer […] kids who have devices and internet at home can make more
connections, they keep doing great, but our kids from minority backgrounds don’t have the guidance and don’t get those
opportunities—even if they have access to a device or the internet, we’re not always giving them access to opportunities to build
those connection.” Ultimately, what is happening is that the digital divide is so much more than whether or not students have access
to technology. We are limiting the opportunities they have in life in general. ISTE describes the problem with this disparity by
stating, “In using technology for instruction and learning, students gain more than just knowledge in core subject areas—they also
acquire skills necessary to be productive and competitive in the workplace, in higher education, and in military or community
service” (pp 4.)
Supporting Sources:
Bowser, G., & Zabala, J. (2012). AIM for digital equity . Learning & Leading with Technology 39(7), 16-19.
eSchool. (2014, November 11). 7 Reasons Digital Equity Is A Social Justice Issue. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/11/12/digital-equity-access-938/?all
ISTE 2018 Policy Brief
McCray, V. (2018, September 18). Metro Atlanta Schools Address 'Digital Divide'. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/metro-schools-address-digital-divide/IryLDAknFxIQwFfEgvdu3K/
ESSENTIAL CONDITION FIVE: Skilled Personnel
ISTE Definition: Educators and support staff skilled in the use of ICT appropriate for their job responsibilities.
Guiding Questions:
 To what extent are educators and support staff skilled in the use of technology appropriate for their job responsibilities?
 What do they currently know and are able to do?
 What are knowledge and skills do they need to acquire?
(Note: No need to discuss professional learning here. Discuss knowledge and skills. This is your needs assessment for
professional learning. The essential conditions focus on “personnel,” which includes administrators, staff, technology specialists,
and teachers. However, in this limited project, you may be wise to focus primarily or even solely on teachers; although you may
choose to address the proficiency of other educators/staff IF the need is critical. You must include an assessment of teacher
proficiencies.)
We are gaining more Some veteran teachers feel Our new teacher program Outdated views on teaching
technology adopters every year resentful to new teachers allows us to identify the and learning
strengths of new teachers
Support staff is beginning to It is hard for support staff and Support staff is often over-
seek technology training knowledgeable trainers to New technologies allow worked and unmotivated to
schedule a time to collaborate virtual training and meeting spend more time working to
opportunities to reach a learn the technology
broader audience
As of right now, we have the majority of our staff who do not know how to use the technology appropriate for completing their job.
However, I have been closely watching our teachers and staff for the past five years and I have seen some development. There has
not been a significant change but I think that the enthusiasm and attitudes about appropriate technology integration are shifting into
a more positive direction. As more and more teachers enter the building who are technology savvy, they are able to spread that
enthusiasm even further. For the past five years, administrators have been mostly “out of the loop” when it came to technology.
However, as we are moving teachers more towards meaningful technology integration, administrators have concluded that if they
are expecting the teachers to integrate technology effectively, they should do the same.

It is imperative that the teachers take it upon themselves to learn the best practices when it comes to instruction and technology. If
they are not at any measureable level of proficiency, they are failing to provide students with the opportunities they need in order to
be successful in the 21st century. The 2018 ISTE Policy Brief describes those necessary skills the abilities to, “communicate,
collaborate, analyze, create, innovate, and solve problems (pp 4). It is possible for a teacher to not integrate technology to give
students the opportunity to learn these essential skills—however, if 75 teachers think the same thing, many students are missing
opportunities to learn and practice the aforementioned skills. The 2018 ISTE Policy Brief continues to explain the necessities of this
issue. ISTE explains, “It is necessary to measure achievement in broader terms: student portfolios; papers and reports;
presentations; and formative assessments that gauge critical thinking and problem-solving skills alongside math, reading, and
science. Likewise, it is essential to incorporate advances in the use of technology in teaching and learning and assess their effects of
achievement ensure through test scores and the acquisition of 21st century skills (i.e., the skills that are required for students to
succeed beyond high school and thrive in the ‘Digital Age’)” (pp 5). Even the most reluctant teachers have to start somewhere. A
good place for them to start could be through audio feedback; Revere et al (2011) report that “Research suggests that students
overwhelmingly prefer audio feedback over the more traditional methods of text-based feedback.” Therefore, giving teachers a
simply way to start their journey into effective technology integration does not have to start big, but it does have to start
somewhere.
Supporting Sources:
Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGED LEARNING A Meaningful Synthesis for
Educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-
ESSENTIAL CONDITION SIX: Ongoing Professional Learning
ISTE Definition: Technology-related professional learning plans and opportunities with dedicated time to practice and share ideas.
Guiding Questions:
 What professional learning opportunities are available to educators? Are they well-attended? Why or why not?
 Are the current professional learning opportunities matched to the knowledge and skills educators need to acquire? (see
Skilled Personnel)
 Do professional learning opportunities reflect the national standards for professional learning (NSDC/Learning Forward)?
 Do educators have both formal and informal opportunities to learn?
 Is technology-related professional learning integrated into all professional learning opportunities or isolated as a separate
topic?
 How must professional learning improve/change in order to achieve the shared vision?
Administration believes in There is only a small budget The county offers ongoing Some teachers only participate
professional learning so they for providing coverage for professional learning all year in professional learning to “get
are willing to make it a priority teachers credit”
Teachers who have Most teachers are reluctant There are a lot of different Potential judgements by
demonstrated expertise in about leading professional types of professional learning reluctant teachers
certain instructional practices learning (course teams, PLCs, etc)
are encouraged to lead
professional learning
opportunities Some teachers feel they have We have support from cluster- Sustainability of support and
nothing to gain if a wide initiatives to improve learning opportunities is
Most professional learning professional learning leader is instructional technology unclear as jobs and duties shift
includes some kind of far more technology savvy integration
technology integration than they are
The topic of ongoing professional learning has been a hot topic at MVHS for a few years now. Teachers say that they want learning
opportunities, but they get upset when they have to attend them. I am not sure if this is an issue of mandatory attendance being a
deterrent or if teachers are exaggerating their willingness to continue learning. There are different kinds of learning opportunities
offered at MVHS. These include self-paced and differentiated learning opportunities where teachers focus on what they need to
accomplish, but at the level, they understand. Teachers have the opportunity to attend observations of their peers. Teachers are
provided optional face-to-face sessions with our experts in the building. These are generally not well attended unless they are
deemed mandatory. However, low attendance, to me, indicates the need for a revamp in approach, energy, time use, etc. One
problem that we tend to run into is that the teachers who are already technology savvy are the ones who want to learn more; the
ones who are not technology savvy do not. Teachers have opportunities for both formal and informal learning. Most of the informal
learning comes from impromptu observations or a brief segment of a course team meeting. The training opportunities are aligned
with the standards for professional learning, but that element is not usually emphasize.

The differences in the teachers at MVHS are vast. There are many veteran teachers who are not willing to accept new knowledge
from someone that has been alive less time than they have been teaching. McCausland,, King, Bartholomew, Feyre, Ahmad, and
Finkelstein, L. (2015) suggest, “As compared to younger trainees, ostensibly older trainees evoked negative expectancies when
training for a technological task, which ultimately manifested in poorer training interactions and trainer evaluations of trainee
performance.” I think this is one of the significant barriers between what can and will be accomplished during any given
professional learning opportunity. I think that one way to ease the tension of this situation is to stick with the end goal in mind. We
all must do our best to provide students with the best and most effective learning opportunities that will prepare them for entering a
global market in the 21st century. The 2018 ISTE Policy brief suggests, “Teacher’s direct application of technology must be aligned
to local and/or state curriculum standards. […] Technology must be incorporated into the daily learning schedule. […] Programs
and applications must provide individualized feedback to students and teachers and must have the ability to tailor lessons to
individual student’s needs” (pp 7.). With that being said, an emphasis on how a certain technology tools can help teachers meet a
specific (and measureable) standard might be the best way to generate that initial buy in. I think that to begin with, administrators
are going to have to establish some precedent for teachers to have better attendance at professional learning opportunites. From
there, we can establish that the expectation is that they will attend and they will apply the concepts they learn to their classroom on
an escalating basis depending on their initial level of technology integration proficiencies.
Supporting Sources:
McCausland, T., King, E., Bartholomew, L., Feyre, R., Ahmad, A., & Finkelstein, L. (2015). The Technological Age: The Effects of
Perceived Age in Technology Training. Journal of Business & Psychology, 30(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-
9390-5
ESSENTIAL CONDITION SEVEN: Technical Support
ISTE Definition: Consistent and reliable assistance for maintaining, renewing, and using ICT and digital resources.
Guiding Questions:
 To what extent is available equipment operable and reliable for instruction?
 Is there tech assistance available for technical issues when they arise? How responsive is tech support? Are current “down
time” averages acceptable?
 Is tech support knowledgeable? What training might they need?
 In addition to break/fix issues, are support staff available to help with instructional issues when teachers try to use
technology in the classroom?
Our technical support team A representative from the The equipment may not be
Our technical support team is does not value instructional county and I offer technical updated before it is outdated
knowledgeable technology—they focus on support (both face-to-face and
hardware remotely) for instructional
technology Teachers will not seek help if
Part of our technical support Part of our technical support they do not feel comfortable
team is very willing to help team is not willing to help and There are people in the asking
pushes teachers away building who are not actually
Our Instructional technology technical support but can
support is much better than the We don’t have enough time to function as so
physical technology allow instructional technology Some people are too dependent
support to truly push in and We have a great county on the county representative to
help teachers representative to works with us “do it for them” instead of
on our instructional technology actually learning
needs
About 98% of the available technology is functional, useable, and available to anyone. However, there are some specialty items like
the Audio/Visual Broadcasting equipment are only available to a certain teacher and certain students when permitted. Technology
assistance is somewhat of a conundrum at MVHS because there are more people who need help than people who can help them.
The person in charge of managing the school hardware and software is very off-putting. He doesn’t invite people into his office, he
does not dress professional, and he does not speak to teachers with respect. This is problematic because now teachers do not want to
ask for his help regardless of the extent to which they might need it. Furthermore, this person will go out of his way to have issues
be “not his responsibility” whether it officially is or is not. The person who is supposed to be responsible for providing tools,
training, and assisting with instructional technology is essentially a data clerk. His primary role is to aggregate and distribute
whatever data might be requested on him. He resets passwords, unlocks accounts and things like that. Instructional technology
really is not on his radar. Therefore, I am left with the responsibility to offer professional learning in terms of instructional
technology for the staff. I am grateful that I have an administration team that allows me some freedoms so that I can help our
teachers. However, being in two places at once is inconvenient. Overall the tech support is knowledgeable, but the responsibilities
probably need to be adjusted.

My recommendation is primarily to replace the current technology support team (two people “officially”) with two new people who
can enter a new environment and make people feel comfortable asking for help. Boser (2013) summarizes what one of my biggest
concerns is, he states, “Far too often, school leaders fail to consider how technology might dramatically improve teaching and
learning, and schools frequently acquire digital devices without discrete learning goals and ultimately use these devices in ways that
fail to adequately serve students, schools, or taxpayers.” I think that if we keep purchasing technology without the proper support to
get teachers to use the technologies in a meaningful way, the technology will go unused until it is already outdated.
Supporting Sources:
2019.
ESSENTIAL CONDITION EIGHT: Curriculum Framework
ISTE Definition: Content standards and related digital curriculum resources.

Guiding Questions:
 To what extent are educators, students, and parents aware of student technology standards? (ISTE Standards for Students)
 Are technology standards aligned to content standards to help teachers integrate technology skills into day-to-day
instruction and not teach technology as a separate subject?
 To what extent are there digital curriculum resources available to teachers so that they can integrate technology into the
GPS/CCS as appropriate?
 How is student technology literacy assessed?
A new framework is slowly Some people are confused by At the beginning of the 2019- Some teachers may be
being put into place the framework because there 2020 school year, there will be reluctant to invest their time if
are so many different parts very clear and specific learning they are close to retirement
There is a clear and specific opportunities to help people
plan for technology within our The plan may seem intimidate understand the framework and Some may interpret the
new instructional framework by what seems like such a big how it applies to them framework as “new rules and
change (but really isn’t) expectations” However, it is
There is a measurement tool The measurement tool, if used There will be ample learning moreso just a rearrangement of
used to informally evaluate improperly, will scare some opportunities for teachers to what is there and being help
how well teachers are teachers out of using truly understand and operate accountable
integrating technology technology because they think within the framework.
they might “mess up”
Teachers will have a Many teachers are scared of
“department innovator” that accountability measures
they can turn to if they find because so many people are
themselves stuck or needing stressed about the new pay
assistance scale for GCPS
According to Rowe, Bozalek, and Frantz (2013), “Much of the research into educational technology emphasizes its role in
information transfer rather than as a transformative medium that leads to improved learning through structured interaction and
flexible approaches to the curriculum.” The positive thing about this framework is that it does allow for flexible approaches to the
curriculum. It does not grant carte blanch to the school but it does encourage and promote the use of innovative instructional
strategies. When presenting this framework to the staff, we must ensure that that message is made very clear. We have developed an
informal measurement tool for both administrators and teachers to use to self-evaluate their own proficiencies with the specified
areas of instructional technology. This will aid in goal setting and personal challenges to “get better” with their instructional
technology use and appropriate learning opportunities for students. Administrators will have this tool available to them to help them
establish what various teachers on varying proficiency levels look like. This will help them with planning, mentoring, and future
evaluations. Literacy is expected to be embedded across all curriculum areas. However, next year, this will go a step further and
students will need to demonstrate digital literacy skills. This will look different in many settings but students should have a regular
opportunity to focus on digital literacy within the context of each of their courses. The technology standards are not yet aligned with
the ISTE standards for students; however, that will be a significant part of the curriculum framework and learning opportunities for
next year.
It is imperative that teachers are provided with appropriate transfer of information for them to genuinely understand the framework
and therefore implement it properly in their own courses. Digital curriculum resources are immensely available to teachers.
However, the resources are scattered across various platforms and some teachers do not have the same access as others.
Additionally, there are a lot of teachers who do not know the resources exist. This will also be part of the foundational work
towards moving to a school that makes significant strides with their meaningful technology integration. Row et. al. (2013) goes on
to establish that “authentic learning activities allow multiple solutions and diversity of outcome, rather than having a single correct
response obtained by the application of rules and procedures.” If we apply this idea to student learning and engagement, I think it is
important that we also apply this idea to teacher learning and engagement.
Supporting Sources:
Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063
References
Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital Equity in Education: A Multilevel Examination of Differences in and Relationships between Computer
Access, Computer Use and State-level Technology Policies. EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES,15(3), 1-38.
Retrieved March 13, 2019, from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/51/177.
Boser, U. (2013, June 14). Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck? Retrieved March 14, 2019.
Bowser, G., & Zabala, J. (2012). AIM for Digital Equity. Learning & Leading with Technology 39(7), 16-19.
eSchool. (2014, November 11). 7 Reasons Digital Equity Is A Social Justice Issue. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/11/12/digital-equity-access-938/?all
Gwinnett County Public Schools. (2017, July). EdTech Evolution Leaders. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from
https://www.imsglobal.org/gwinnett-county-public-schools
McCausland, T., King, E., Bartholomew, L., Feyre, R., Ahmad, A., & Finkelstein, L. (2015). The Technological Age: The Effects of
Perceived Age in Technology Training. Journal of Business & Psychology, 30(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
014-9390-5
McCray, V. (2018, September 18). Metro Atlanta Schools Address 'Digital Divide'. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/metro-schools-address-digital-divide/IryLDAknFxIQwFfEgvdu3K/
Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENGAGED LEARNING A Meaningful Synthesis for Educators.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-
Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063

Appendices
Appendix A: ISTE Diagnostic
Appendix B:
Technology Proficiency Rubric for Self-Assessment and Information Administrator Evaluation

Swot Analysis-Schuster

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Swot Analysis-Schuster

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ITEC 7410/EDL 7105 SWOT Analysis Template for Technology Planning Needs Assessment

What is the current reality in our school?

ESSENTIAL CONDITION ONE: Effective Instructional Uses of Technology Embedded in Standards-Based,

ISTE 2018 Policy Brief

ESSENTIAL CONDITION TWO: Shared Vision

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

ESSENTIAL CONDITION THREE: Planning for Technology

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

Some teachers can be very

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

ISTE 2018 Policy Brief

ESSENTIAL CONDITION FIVE: Skilled Personnel

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

ESSENTIAL CONDITION SIX: Ongoing Professional Learning

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

ESSENTIAL CONDITION SEVEN: Technical Support

Recommendations from Gap Analysis:

ESSENTIAL CONDITION EIGHT: Curriculum Framework

ISTE Definition: Content standards and related digital curriculum resources.

Retrieved March 13, 2019, from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/51/177.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124. Retrieved from http://proxygsu-

of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063

Appendix A: ISTE Diagnostic

Technology Proficiency Rubric for Self-Assessment and Information Administrator Evaluation

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi