1.2: Strategic Planning
Candidates facilitate the design, development, implementation, communication, and evaluation of technology-infused strategic plans. (PSC 1.2/ISTE 1b)
Artifacts: Artifact A: SWOT Analysis of School Technology Plan ITEC 7410
Artifact B: School Technology Plan
Reflection
I had the opportunity to perform a full SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis on Atlanta International Schools’ (AIS) current technology plan and used a variety of sources to create the artifact attached (deep reading, additional research, discussions with the Head of 21st Century Teaching and Learning). Artifact B is AIS’ Technology Plan, which has sculpted much of what I know and understand about technology integration in this school. The SWOT analysis (Artifact A) has been instrumental in helping me navigate my new role this year as an Instructional Technologist for the secondary school.
I have learned that writing technology plans are not easy! It is easy to pull together a team to discuss, share and iterate ideas but it is difficult to pull all of the relevant stakeholders together. The reality is that often these plans date rather quickly. While the stakeholders that scoped this plan in the early stages are still part of the school technology pedagogical team, that team has widened conversation to include the subject group leaders, a diverse group of educators involved in Stanford “D-School” Atlanta Design Challenge (of which AIS is one of the competing schools) and STEM/STEAM stakeholders as we hire a full-time coordinator to this position next year. Perhaps to my mind, it is practically impossible to write a five-year technology plan – that something much more flexible and iterative that is aligned to a change environment like AIS is necessary.
As I migrated into my role as a technology integrationist with dedicated time for working with just faculty in the classroom on curricular planning to deepen technology integration, I found many evidences of my SWOT analysis and set to work trying to amend or progress the forward movement of some perceived opportunities. One such line item was to clarify the role between IT Operations staff and Instructional Technology faculty. This was facilitated using one of a series of “Lunch and Learn” Professional Development offerings I have planned for faculty in January – March 2015 on topics volunteered using an “ideas” Padlet. I also noted (from a teacher perspective), that under Essential Condition Six: Ongoing Professional Learning, that class walk-throughs to assess technology use depth were nearly impossible due to lack of time. I certainly see that in my role from the other side of the chalkboard now. To authentically work with teachers on a class walk-through model that is non-threatening and knowledge building takes time in a very temporally starved environment.
As AIS’ Technology Plan, in its current form, will be reviewed in the next academic year, I hope that this SWOT analysis will be perceived to be a useful tool in our redesign and help sculpt our development and iterative implementation and communication of AIS’ Technology goals and overall school improvement. This impact might be assessed through one of my professional goals by the end of the 2014 – 15 academic years. I am designing a tool for technology integration that faculty can use to evaluate their own technology integration depth alongside their regular Middle Years Programme (MYP) Unit of Inquiry planner. The measurement of this success will be ongoing reflective review with faculty into a self-reflection cycle of the depth of technology integration. Part of this is the objective of my Capstone project as I test which structured standards from T-PACK, LoTi (HEAT) and SAMR is most suitable in subject curriculum planning in the MYP. See Standard 1.3 for more on this point, as I created the standards policy by which technology integrationists would be professionally measured in assisting faculty to work through these kinds of technology consideration models. This should certainly assist in the evaluation of our current School Technology Plan and the iteration of the next dynamic generation for both teaching faculty and supporting instructional technologists.
I had the opportunity to perform a full SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis on Atlanta International Schools’ (AIS) current technology plan and used a variety of sources to create the artifact attached (deep reading, additional research, discussions with the Head of 21st Century Teaching and Learning). Artifact B is AIS’ Technology Plan, which has sculpted much of what I know and understand about technology integration in this school. The SWOT analysis (Artifact A) has been instrumental in helping me navigate my new role this year as an Instructional Technologist for the secondary school.
I have learned that writing technology plans are not easy! It is easy to pull together a team to discuss, share and iterate ideas but it is difficult to pull all of the relevant stakeholders together. The reality is that often these plans date rather quickly. While the stakeholders that scoped this plan in the early stages are still part of the school technology pedagogical team, that team has widened conversation to include the subject group leaders, a diverse group of educators involved in Stanford “D-School” Atlanta Design Challenge (of which AIS is one of the competing schools) and STEM/STEAM stakeholders as we hire a full-time coordinator to this position next year. Perhaps to my mind, it is practically impossible to write a five-year technology plan – that something much more flexible and iterative that is aligned to a change environment like AIS is necessary.
As I migrated into my role as a technology integrationist with dedicated time for working with just faculty in the classroom on curricular planning to deepen technology integration, I found many evidences of my SWOT analysis and set to work trying to amend or progress the forward movement of some perceived opportunities. One such line item was to clarify the role between IT Operations staff and Instructional Technology faculty. This was facilitated using one of a series of “Lunch and Learn” Professional Development offerings I have planned for faculty in January – March 2015 on topics volunteered using an “ideas” Padlet. I also noted (from a teacher perspective), that under Essential Condition Six: Ongoing Professional Learning, that class walk-throughs to assess technology use depth were nearly impossible due to lack of time. I certainly see that in my role from the other side of the chalkboard now. To authentically work with teachers on a class walk-through model that is non-threatening and knowledge building takes time in a very temporally starved environment.
As AIS’ Technology Plan, in its current form, will be reviewed in the next academic year, I hope that this SWOT analysis will be perceived to be a useful tool in our redesign and help sculpt our development and iterative implementation and communication of AIS’ Technology goals and overall school improvement. This impact might be assessed through one of my professional goals by the end of the 2014 – 15 academic years. I am designing a tool for technology integration that faculty can use to evaluate their own technology integration depth alongside their regular Middle Years Programme (MYP) Unit of Inquiry planner. The measurement of this success will be ongoing reflective review with faculty into a self-reflection cycle of the depth of technology integration. Part of this is the objective of my Capstone project as I test which structured standards from T-PACK, LoTi (HEAT) and SAMR is most suitable in subject curriculum planning in the MYP. See Standard 1.3 for more on this point, as I created the standards policy by which technology integrationists would be professionally measured in assisting faculty to work through these kinds of technology consideration models. This should certainly assist in the evaluation of our current School Technology Plan and the iteration of the next dynamic generation for both teaching faculty and supporting instructional technologists.