|
By Glenn Meeks
When you look at the overall timeline of a project, the facility program scope (the places) and costs are set up front. Somewhere within six to four months of occupation, the technology group (the things) is told it is time for them to do their thing, and then the professional development (the people) work begins after the staff and students move into the building. In other words, the things and people aspects of a technology implementation are reactive to the facility program scope that was set at an earlier date. That represents a major inefficiency in the process. By the time the teacher knows how to use the building and its technology, the technology is "over the hill." The way to overcome the teacher skill set latency in the process is to include professional development and technology participants from the very beginning of the facility planning process. If your planning can be accomplished through a technology master plan that is then fleshed out through a specific project, you will find even greater efficiencies and much smoother sailing.
A good technology master plan should represent a balanced approach to the people, places and things aspects of a technology implementation program. We suggest those aspects are broken down further.
PEOPLE - curriculum and instruction, professional development, policies and process, and instructional technology support.
PLACES - the spaces within a facility and the impact of technology on those spaces.
THINGS - the infrastructure of the facility required to support technology, technology systems, loose or owner furnished equipment and technical support.
The plan should also have a realistic strategic overview within each area of interest that defines: "Where are you now, where do you want to go and how will you get there?"
When you start to dissect the areas of interest within the people, places and things aspects, it quickly becomes apparent that a thorough technology plan will be complex. Quite a few of you have the same experience that I have, that the more complex a concept or plan, the lower the probability of success (I must admit to a few failures of my own). How do you make a complex plan simple and coherent so your participants can execute the plan? You use one over- riding concept against which everything is measured. What should that concept be? Make the primary concept against which everything is weighed "What Kids Learn," the curriculum and instructional program.
What I mean is that you start off with the instructional program aspect of technology implementation, not a wish list of hardware and software. Can you answer the question: What skill set or knowledge the student is supposed to gain is more appropriately or efficiently delivered using technology? The corollary is that you are also defining what learning activities ARE NOT appropriate for delivery via technology.
|
