The cost of technology makes it very important to future-proof as part of a technology
plan. Whitehead, Jensen, and Boshee
(2013) emphasize the need to ensure technology programs leverage systems already available and that are “configured
to meet state and federal standards” (p. 198).
More specifically, it’ important to choose infrastructure and devices
that are widely available in the marketplace, not a new potential fad. Apple, Microsoft, and Google have
demonstrated marketplace technology that is widely available and regularly
updated. Additionally, given cloud technology, schools no longer need spend their
funds in purchasing expensive software for every device, making change costly
and difficult. Instead, web browsers
offer access to subscription-based capability, and schools that might determine
the apps they are using are not fulfilling the promise, can easily transition to
different technology (Swallow, 2015). This “adaptability” (Whitehead, Jensen, and
Boshee, 2013, p. 200), enables teachers and students to adapt to rapid changes
among students, teachers, and technology.
It is also important to make sure the infrastructure, particularly the
network, is sufficient to support the use, and that funding is sufficient in
future years to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. Schools must count the cost. This is no different than the reference Jesus
made in Luke 14:28, “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the
cost to see if you have enough money to complete it” (Luke 14:28, NIV)? If schools do not budget sufficiently to
support the technology transition, it is probably doomed from the start. What is implemented today must be anticipated
to continue fir the next 5 or 10 years (Whitehead, Jensen, and Boshee, 2013).
It is also that high cost that contributes to potential
push-back from some involved. Some may
not see the value in 21st Century learning skills, instead touting
traditional methods as sufficient.
Perhaps these kinds of people would prefer students still use slate boards
and chalk to work their problems! But
seriously, some are simply resistant to change. In previous Blogs, we have discussed
techniques for dealing with change, but a common theme in managing change is
engaging the stakeholders in the what,
why, and how. Stakeholders must see how the change will
improve their students, and will improve student outcomes. The Ferriter (2013, as cited in Sheninger,
2014, p. 148) infographic emphasizes the need for a focus on learning outcomes,
not the technology itself. The
technology is an enabler of 21st Century learning skills; those
identified in the ISTE National Education Standards for Students, Teachers, and
Administrators (ISTE, 2016). In fact,
research has shown that if the focus is on the technology, and not integration
of 21st Century learning, then programs are challenged to be
successful in their second year (Swallow, 2015). Instead, stakeholders have to see results in
order to believe there is a return on investment. Additionally, many schools and districts
legitimately do not have the funds to move to 21st Century learning. This is where partnerships come into play
(Sheninger, 2014). Through partnerships,
other public organizations and private industry can help sponsor technology
transition to connected classrooms where there are schools and districts that
need resources. As Christians, we should
have a heart four our Children, for their growth and education. Jesus said in Matthew, “For where your
treasure is, there will be your heart also” (Matthew 6:21). If we truly believe in our children’s growth,
we will invest our treasure in it.
References
ISTE (2016). International Standards for Technology in
Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards
Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing
paradigms for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Swallow, M. (2015). The year-two decline: Exploring the
incremental experiences of a 1:1 technology initiative. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 47(2). 122-137. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2015.999641
Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F., & Boschee, F. (2013). Planning
for technology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
No comments:
Post a Comment