Re: tkt8763-01: Lacey's third experience (fwd)

[Cheryl Marie Whitfield <cmwhit@ra.msstate.edu>]

> Experience #3
> 
> My third meeting with Lifegate on November 23, 1998, went much better than I
> had anticipated.  I returned to a committee that was extremely excited about
> creating a technology plan.  However, the evening was jaded by the fact that
> several of the committee members could not meet that evening due to several
> family and personal problems.  Nonetheless, the meeting went as scheduled.

If you can keep their enthusiasm high, this committee can accomplish great
things for the school. The fact that the meeting was held as scheduled is
good. If the meetings are constantly changed to adapt to other scheduled
events, then the planning would appear to be of secondary importance to
me.

> To my amazement, the principal said that the school already had some of the
> computer programs that I had demonstrated in our previous meeting, but he and
> all of the other members were unaware that the school had such assets.  

Just as with library books and materials, there needs to be some system in
place for cataloging purchases and keeping up with licensing for software.
Good record keeping from the outset will eliminate problems down the road.
The principal is now aware of the problem and should see the advantage of
instituting some type of record-keeping procedure.

> The committee began immediately by asking questions that they had developed
> concerning the information packets I had given them in our previous  meeting.
> Mostly, the committee was worried about the technical language that many of
> the plans included.  I simply told them that we are not as concerned about
> the language in the document as we are with the content and the direction that
> we want our school to go.  Many of the members had developed some thoughts
> about what they thought should be included in the plan.   At this point in the
> discussion, I felt like we were finally going in the right direction.  The
> committee was concerned with their ability to create a clear and defined
> mission statement about their hopes and aspirations.  Several of the defining
> words they chose to concentrate on included:  implementation, innovation,
> active learning, awareness, and conceptualization.  I felt that this was a
> very good start to some real thinking about the future.

You have them all involved in the thought process which is great.

> I provided the committee with several catalogs that included numerous types of
> software and hardware components. In speaking with the group, I discovered
> that they are relatively lost in the technology world.   There are several
> committee members that are familiar with the hardware aspects, but their
> knowledge of educational technology is limited.  

Many (if not the majority) teachers are not familiar with what educational
software is available. So, the committee members need not feel badly about
this.

> I also suggested that the
> committee have the teachers review the catalogs.  In addition to that I
> suggested to the principal that the teachers in the school as well as the
> committee should read "Great teaching in the one computer classroom" published
> by Tom Snyder Productions.  I thought that this book could provide the
> committee with some vision as to how technology can enhance traditional
> instruction.  The major concern among all of the members is that the
> technology will take away from the traditional teaching time and in some cases
> distract the students so much that little learning is accomplished.  I can
> understand why they have this fear coming from this school environment.  The
> computers have always sat over in a corner and they were always viewed as a
> necessary technical tool, rather than a useful tool.

Rather than distracting the students, the computer should *involve* the
students in the learning process. As far as "traditional teaching time"
goes, that will change--for the better if done appropriately. Once parents
and teachers view technology as an asset that enhances the learning
process, "traditional teaching time" will no longer be an issue.

> Rather than being concerned with just data and computers, the
> members began to see that instructional technology can also include email,
> video tapes, and conventional cameras.

I don't know if you are familiar with the ThinkQuest site or not, but you
might want to let the committee members visit some of the sites created by
students. http://www.advanced.org/thinkquest/

One in particular that I have looked at is Volcanoes Online which was
created by three students--one in Singapore, one in the Netherlands, and
one in Washington state. They met for the first time when they collected
their award from Thinkquest.  Communication among them was done by file
transfer and e-mail. And, if you read the information they wrote about
developing the site, all three thanked their teachers extensively.

> The committee has agreed to meet again before the Christmas Holidays.  At this
> next meeting, we plan to begin out initial phases of writing a mission
> statement.  However, at this particular time, the committee seems to be stuck
> in the research phase, which I must say is crucial because of  the lack of
> knowledge about educational technology.

At some point I know they need to begin writing, but the more research
they do the better the plan will be. What is wonderful to me is that they
seem to be willingly "doing their homework."

> Now I must begin to speak about my experience the following day at the school.
> I am extremely frustrated on one score.  The technology specialist that is on
> the Lifegate campus is a very nice person, but I have discovered that she is
> not really willing to help in any manner associated with the technology
> planning.  The committee has met twice now, and she has not been present to
> either meeting.  Also, I was amazed as I said before that the school had many
> of the educational programs that I demonstrated for them, but no one in the
> administration nor among the teachers knew that the school had any of these
> resources.  As I looked into the closet in room 216, I was amazed.  The
> software programs are new, but none of them are being used.  I discovered that
> there are at least 5 computers that have Windows 95 and are capable of using
> all of the programs in the closet.  

If this committee is as enthusiastic as you indicate, and if they truly
want what is most beneficial for their children, then it won't take them
long to discover that there is a problem with the situation as it is
at the school. Had you not shown them the software, they probably would
not have recognized what resources are being wasted by having them sit
in the closet. Committee members are being bombarded with a lot of
information in a very short span of time, but it appears they are learning
quickly. Parents want the best for their children; they want them to have
equal opportunities to succeed in the world. So, I might find websites
that show what students are accomplishing at other schools through the
Internet and demonstrate some of the web sites as a prelude to the next
meeting.

> I made the mistake of suggesting the the
> technologist that the elementary school could really use one of the computers
> to share, so that they could begin using some of the software programs that
> were in the closet.  My thinking is that if the teachers become familiar with
> the equipment and the programs that are available now, the transition to
> faster, newer equipment will be easier to adjust to.  However, I was quickly
> aware that she did not share in my enthusiam about sharing technology.  She
> explain to me that she could not give up one computer to anyone, because her
> design class needed every single computer so that every student would be sure
> to have access to a computer.  I did not know what to say.  I guess I assume
> that people who are involved in the technology world are aware that 1 computer
> for every student is no longer the message.  I guess I was wrong.

If you think about it from her point of view (whether she is right or
wrong), you represent a threat to the status quo of her classroom (not to
mention her job as technologist). She is going to be defensive at best
and openly hostile at worst. The last thing you want to have happen
is to create a division among the parents/students/staff at the school
by forcing them to take "sides" in this issue, diverting their attention
away from the main issue of technology planning. If she is a nice person,
then she probably has a following who will defend her against an
"outsider." 

Because of your excellent work to date, the principal is aware that there
are problems. The committee will soon come to the same opinion, if they
haven't already. Let them be the ones to initiate or advocate changes. It
would seem almost better to either wait for new equipment
for the elementary school or buy a single computer for their use at this
time rather than to create problems between the various stakeholders. 

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
      *      Cheryl M. Whitfield, Curriculum Design Associate     *
      *       Center for Educational and Training Technology      *
      *     309 Bost Extension Building / Post Office Box 9662    *
      *            Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762           *
      *            cmwhit@ra.msstate.edu / 601-325-3381           *
      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



******* TKT 8763 Seminar in Planning for Instructional Technology  *******
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, e-mail to "majordomo@msstate.edu"
   with the message "subscribe tkt8763-01" or "unsubscribe tkt8763-01".
       Subscribers may post messages to "tkt8763-01@msstate.edu".