DOCUMENT RESUME EA 028 154 ED 402 686 Bielefeldt, Talbot AUTHOR Systemic Planning for Technology. TITLE Oregon School Study Council, Eugene. INSTITUTION ISSN-0095-6694 REPORT NO Jan 97 PUB DATE 39p. NOTE Oregon School Study Council, 1787 Agate Street, AVAILABLE FROM College of Education, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207 ($7 nonmember; $4.50 member; quantity discounts). Information Serials (022) Collected Works PUB TYPE Non-Classroom Use (055) Guides Analyses (070) OSSC Bulletin; v40 n2 Jan 1997 JOURNAL CIT MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer Uses in DESCRIPTORS Education; Educational Objectives; *Educational Planning; *Educational Technology; Elementary Secondary Education; *Integrated Learning Systems; Master Plans; Needs Assessment; Organizational Development; School Districts; School Restructuring; *Systems Development; *Technological Advancement *Oregon IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT Technology and structural change in education are the inextricably linked. That is, schools generally need to change of technology, and the use way they do things to take full advantage schools. This report of technology tends to change what happens in districts examines recent theory and practice of schools and school using a systemic planning for educational technology, focusing on refers to approach to technology planning. Educational technology software and hardware that are used to assist, present, or assess for making teaching and learning. Chapter 1 presents the case anticipate, technology planning part of a larger effort to planning coordinate, or create change. Chapter 2 reviews some common practices, followed by a short checklist for the planning process. developed Chapter 3 offers examples of systemic plans for technology from interviews by Oregon districts. Some of the material was drawn planning. The focus with six directors or coordinators of technology that throughout is on technology planning as a concrete process references.) (LMI) results in a technology plan. (Contains 40 *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** SYSTEMIC PLANNING FOR TECHNOLOGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ED CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as Talbot Bielefeldt received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS BEEN GRANTED BY MATERJ,4L H Oregon School Study Council January 1997 Volume 40, Number 2 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." L BEST COPY AVM LABLE SYSTEMIC PLANNING FOR TECHNOLOGY Talbot Bielefeldt Oregon School Study Council January 1997 Volume 40, Number 2 3 ISSN 0095-6694 Nonmember price: $7.00 Member price: $4.50 Quantity Discounts: 10-24 copies 15% 25-49 copies - 20% 50+ copies 25% OSSC STAFF Philip K. Pie le, Executive Secretary Stuart C. Smith, Editor Linda S. Lumsden, Associate Editor Holly C. Schultz, Layout Specialist Suzy Kolpack, Publications Sales OSSC GOVERNING BOARD Bart McElroy, School Board Member, Salem/Keizer SD 24J Joan Peterson, School Board Member, Ontario SD 8 Ronald Russell, Superintendent, David Douglas SD 40 Elaine Hopson, Superintendent, Tillamook SD 9 Marilyn Pheasant, Superintendent, Olney SD 11 Philip K. Pie le, Professor and Executive Secretary, Oregon School Study Council Paul Goldman, Associate Professor, Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon Cliff Kuhlman, School Board Member, Oregon School Boards Association OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL 1787 Agate Street College of Education 5207 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207 (541) 346-5044 Fax: (541) 346-2334 The University of Oregon is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. Preface The relationship between technology and education is complex. Be- communica- cause of the dramatic changes brought about by computers and tions, most people recognize that technology needs to play a role in school. Yet the effects of using technology in instruction are varied. Some programs show increases in academic achievement for students using technology; others do not. Compared to information-based workplaces, there is an obvi- of unused or ous shortage of technology in schools, yet stories also abound underused classroom computers. In the mid-1990s, a consensus began to emerge in various reports and research that the issues of how to use and assess technology were part of larger questions about restructuring education to meet the needs of students in a changing world. The complex relationships among teaching, learning, and technology could not be understood outside this context. This Bulletin presents the argument for this systemic approach to technology planning, along with discussion of current plans from Oregon school districts. It pro- vides members of planning teams with practical guidelines for developing or revising their own district or building plans. These guidelines were reviewed by a number of technology planners, including Arlen Sheldrake of the Multnomah County Education Service District, Paul O'Driscoll of Salem-Keizer Public Schools, Dr. Larry Ander- David Moursund of son of the National Center for Technology Planning, Dr. the International Society for Technology in Education, and attendees of the Oregon School Study Council meeting in Portland, Oregon in November 1996. Talbot Bielefeldt is a research associate at the International Society for Technology in Education and former editor of The Computing Teacher. He teaches adult-education classes at Lane Community College, and is a gradu- ate student in educational policy and management at the University of Or- egon. iii Contents Preface iii Introduction 1 Technology and Restructuring 1. 3 Technology, Teaching, and Learning 3 Add-on vs. Change Agent 5 Systemic Planning 2. 9 Initial Evaluation and Needs Assessment 7 Visions and Goals 8 Budget 9 Evaluation from the Beginning 10 Implementation, Assessment, and Revision 12 Technology Planning Checklist 13 3. Examples of Technology Plans 15 Bethel School District 16 Salem/Keizer Public Schools 17 Lake Oswego School District 19 Tigard-Tualatin School District 21 Gresham-Barlow School District 23 State of Oregon 25 Lessons of Implementation 26 Conclusion 28 Bibliography 29 Interviews 32 6 Introduction This Bulletin examines recent theory and practice of schools and school districts planning for educational technology. Educational technology, for purposes of this Bulletin, includes software and hardwarecomputers, peripheral digital devices, video and audiotape, networksthat are used to assist, present, or assess teaching and learning. It does not include educa- tional data processing or management-information systems by themselves, though in some networked computing environments those functions may be tied in with classroom computing. This Bulletin also concentrates on systemic planning; that is, planning that addresses more than the technical issues of installing computers and networks, and more than the scope and sequence of the instruction that will make use of the technology. This approach is taken because the weight of research and opinion today indicates that installing and using technology in schools is one component of restructuring education. That is, schools gener- ally need to change the way they do things to take full advantage of technol- ogy, and the use of technology tends to change what happens in schools. Michael Holzman (1993) points out that the word systemic is used in at least five ways in the school-change literature. It can mean affecting entire systems, affecting all schools in a system, affecting all aspects of a system, "systematic," and "fundamental." Holzman believes genuine systemic change encompasses all five shades of meaning, and this Bulltein considers examples of technology planning in that light. At the same time, not all technology planners have access to entire school systems, but they are still pressing ahead to change the part of their world that they can affect. As Howard Mehlinger (1995) notes, the technol- ogy revolution has been a grass-roots effort, often initiated by teachers and building-level school administrators. This Bulletin is intended to inform local planners as well as district or regional policy-makers. At some point, all these individuals may end up on the same planning team. To review all the pressures for fundamental change in education is 1 behond the scope of this Bulletin. Suffice it to say that this Bulletin does not assume that systemic change is good in and of itself, only that, at this point in history, many thoughtful observers both inside and outside the educational system have concluded that schools need to adopt the tools and techniques commonly used elsewhere in society to learn, create, and communicate. What is assumed is that pressure to changein particular, to adopt new computer technologieswill not go away, and that educators need to plan accordingly. Chapter 1 presents the case for making technology planning part of a larger effort to anticipate, coordinate, or create change. Chapter 2 reviews some common planning practices, followed by a short checklist for the planning process. Chapter 3 offers examples of systemic plans for technology developed by Oregon districts. The focus throughout is on technology plan- ning as a concrete process that results in a document, a technology plan, whichdepending on the quality of the workmay either sit unread on a shelf or guide the daily activities of thousands of learners. Chapter 1 Technology and Restructuring The essential argument of this Bulletin is that technology and struc- tural change are inextricably linked. Each is essential to the other. This chapter reviews some of the recent literature to support this perspective. A pair of well-publicized U. S. government reports present two aspects of the case for making technology part of systemic planning for school change. In 1993 the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) published Using Technology to Support Education Reform. Based on an extensive literature review, author Barbara Means and her colleagues maintained that "technology supports exactly the kinds of changes in content, roles, organizational climate, and affect that are at the heart of the reform movement." Those changes, according to the OERI report, include student exploration, interactive modes of instruction, extended blocks of authentic and multidisciplinary work, collaborative work, teacher as facilitator, heterogeneous student groupings, and performance-based assessment. In turn, certain organizational conditions are necessary for teachers to make effective use of technology. In addition to such logistical provisions as training time and technical support, these conditions include "policies that include teacher experimentation and collaboration, the presence of incentives for teacher use of technology, administrative leadership about technology, and public understanding and endorsement of technology as a learning and teaching tool" (Office of Technology Assessment 1995). The two conditions given most attention in the OTA report are "having a vision and plan for using technology to meet instructional and professional goals, and evaluation and assessment policies that encourage technology use." Technology, Teaching, and Learning Systemic changes are both supported by, and necessary for, effective 3 educational technology. Some educators believe the failure to integrate technology and school restructuring or systemic reform explains the often inconsistent results from studies of computer use and student achievement. Educational researcher and futurist Chris Dede says, If technology is simply used to automate traditional models of teach- ing and learning, then it'll have very little impact on schools. If it's used to enable new models of teaching and learning, models that can't be implemented without technology, then I think it'll have a major impact on schools. (quoted in O'Neil 1995) Although technology is cited as the key to accessing new sources of information, the simple quantity of information is not the issue, Dede says. The conventional classroom already has access to more information than people can use. Technology's role lies in making possible learning environ- ments that have not been practical before: Many of the things we've been talking aboutcollaborative learning, constructive learning, and apprenticeshipsare not new concepts in learning. But they've never been sustainable. (Dede in O'Neil) Technology can help establish a supportive infrastructure that makes it possible to use those powerful models without burning out. Part of this restructuring for new learning environments needs to occur at the classroom level. Critiques of early metastudies on computer-assisted instruction found that teacher presentation had a profound effect on out- comes, essentially eliminating any clear effect of technology by itself. (See Ann Roblyer's September 1996 column in Learning and Leading with Technology for an excellent summary of this ongoing debate.) As Larry Miller and John Olson (1995) point out, "If the writer's workshop is not a natural component of the curriculum, introducing a sophisticated word processing package will not automatically foster a writing process approach in the language arts classroom." Automatically, nobut technology in the classroom can promote new ways of teaching and learning in a supportive school environment. In discussing research on integrated learning systemsnetworked curriculum and instructional-management packagesresearchers Lath Van Dusen and Blaine Worthen (1995) write, The role of the teacher changes dramatically in the well-managed ILS ... classroom. They act as facilitators and organizers of learning activities; they are free to focus on small groups and individuals who need more specialized attention; and they can coach their students in how to process information, helping them to make choices and validate their learning. Our studies have shown that the extent to . . . which the teacher integrates the ILS and classroom content is the most important factor in producing student learning gains. Unfortunately, 4 10