Curricular+Integration

Rationale: In order to maximize the use of technology in an educational setting in authentic ways, the technology itself must serve as a hidden aspect of proven educational practices and sound curriculum. Educational technology should be used in the same context as other proven teaching methodologies and the use of technology in the classroom should support educational goals rather than supplant them.

Recommendations – Action Items –
 * Formalize a mentor program consisting of technology collaborators in each division.
 * Apply technology by making appropriate tools accessible to students.
 * Examine the best ways to teach and apply technology within our curriculum to enhance student learning.
 * Implement technology expenditures only after establishing plans for student learning and curricular application.
 * Use consistent purchasing procedures to equip every classroom with appropriate hardware and software to meet the needs of individual teachers and ensure curricular application.
 * Document K-12 Technology Goals and Objectives.
 * 1) Identify those members of the Technology Group who might serve as technology collaborators in a formal capacity.
 * 2) Study the feasibility of creating new staff positions responsible for serving as technology collaborators.
 * 3) Increase the availability of portable computers and associated software and peripherals for student use.
 * 4) Identify a mechanism to gather input from the Technology Group as well as The Curriculum Committee, Department Head Committee and Administration Team in an effort to make consistent spending decisions with authentic curricular applications.

COMMENTS ON ACTION ITEMS:

1. Complete? members were identified, but this avenue of support has not been formalized. 2. Complete: Technology Specialist for Curriculum Integration created and staffed. 3. Partial: number of student computer (laptops) increased by appr. 25% 4. Partial: Budget proposals are submitted to Admin, Dept. Heads and Tech Group but technology budgeting process remains a "mystery" to many

Jim Aldridge:
 * This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
 * Little (zero) time for teacher<>teacher tech discussion/mentoring.
 * Little time for teachers to implement technology in their classrooms. It takes time. 4 day teaching week with a day for other work? 4 periods per day with 3 prep periods? We need to find time.
 * Better to put assets into freeing teacher time than into tech coordinators.
 * Need to encourage student laptop/netbook acquisition.
 * Center academic tech discussions within departments and among teachers. Encourage robust experimentation. Support faculty who attempt to innovate, even if some mistakes are made. Slapping down innovators is a sure way to stifle creativity.
 * This section needs extended consideration.

Nate Kogan:
 * In terms of infrastructure we've done a great job. Rooms are outfitted with wifi, nice projector screens, many smart boards, and a number of document cameras. It seems as though the next step is to have students connected as well, and for this integration to go smoothly and be effective we'll certainly need to talk about ways to structure class time and lessons in a manner that allows the laptops to be harnessed for their powers beyond note-taking.
 * I agree with all of Jim's points above. It seems that teacher--teacher contacts and discussion is the most effective and least threatening way to make an effective integration of technology occur.
 * I'm similarly unsure about how schedule the time in for this. However, it seems that given the array of extra-curricular obligations many faculty have (esp. coaching) having after-school meetings and mentoring is not likely to draw much appeal. Perhaps more half-days, though I think Jim's suggestions above are also interesting and worth of consideration.
 * Meetings at the department level, and particularly amongst people who teach different sections of the same course, would likely be the most effective in terms of tangible ideas to implement. However, I also think cross-disciplinary discussions and mentoring can be extremely beneficial as colleagues drawing on other resources may open possibilities for our own fields.
 * I'd like to talk about the idea of laptop/netbooks more extensively and get a clearer sense of the pros and cons.

Mandy Lofquist:
 * Nothing was mentioned in the action items about documenting K-12 technology goals and objectives. Was this done? If not, I think this should be formalized and online.
 * I agree that we are getting there in terms of hardware in classrooms (though maybe not as quickly as some would like). We need to make sure that there is ample opportunity for continued training - not just initial implementation training.
 * This isn't necessarily an action item, but with many teachers(and administrators, directors, etc.) it seems that technology is still considered "extra". We need to highten people's awareness of the importance of working with "Digital Natives". (Look at the video "Pay Attention" on YouTube.)

Jon Shipley (as shared with Teresa Crafton):
 * One of the most productive ways to transfer classroom technology is school to school. Meeting and talking with teachers of your course who use different resources is always enlightening, precisely because it is your course approached from a different direction. I find this more productive than cross-divisional sharing within our own ranks. Ideally, an educational facilitator would make contact with other schools, preview what those schools are doing, and organize visits to interesting classes in conjunction with the appropriate department chair.
 * Educational conferences where software/ tech in specific fields are explored are a great classroom resource that we have barely tapped. Ideally, our educational facilitator would regularly attend various conferences of these types, then meet with teachers of that department to share the ideas from the conference. In some cases, complete lesson plans are available.
 * In both of these cases, there should be a quick path for the classroom teacher to acquire the software/tech once they know it's out there and that other teachers in the field recommend it.
 * Jim's idea of mentoring teacher-to-teacher within the school is also attractive, but as he states, there is no time to do this. The school in general does not have a support system for support teaching-related activities that are not direct teaching, i.e. mentoring teacher to teacher past initial orientation, writing college recommendations, mentoring students, reading and writing in your professional field. All these are activities teachers must do on their own time.

Stephen Dickey:
 * Although I support creating tech mentors to work with their colleagues, time is a factor. Unless teachers are allowed time during the school year to familiarize themselves with new software/hardware, little will be accomplished.
 * I do not believe creating new staff positions as tech collaborators would be an effective use of FWCD resources.
 * I do not believe that FWCD should maintain a significant number of laptops for students.
 * The tech group budgeting process is a mystery to me.
 * I prefer Dr. Aldridge's method of tech mentoring (within departments).
 * Attending a tech conference is an excellent way to learn how other schools are using technology effectively in the classroom. I strongly encourage those interested to attend a NECC ( National Educational Computing Conference ).

Chris Hulce: 
 * Some of my thoughts on this ended up in the end-user support section as the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Not unlike our students all our teachers learning differently, so the method for each teacher may be different but the one underlying, deterrent if you will, is TIME. It’s fairly simple really. Any structure can be setup, trainers, mentors, workshops, conferences, none will be successful if teachers do not have adequate time to train and use the technology.

Lisa Wallace: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Jeff Rozanski:
 * We strongly need more computers for student access.

I agree with Jim that this section needs further evaluation, but i think an increase in school provided computers creates a load on the tech department that might be impossible to keep up with.