Technology Plan Evaluation

EDLD Key Assessment #5, part 2

LaQuata Sumter 4/24/2013

Narrative of reasoning for analysis of Technology Plan Evaluation Rubric.

Technology Planning Analysis Rubric

Components Executive Summary 3 Identifies clearly and concisely for the reader the vision, mission, goals and objectives, background, findings, issues, conclusions, and recommendations of the tech. plan. Submitted on time. Membership list has complete description of constituencies/stakeholder groups. All areas are equitably represented. Submitted on time. 2 Provides adequate and accurate information in Executive Summary. Submitted on time. 1 Executive summary is absent or incomplete. (Missing 2 or more components of information.); or submitted late. Membership is not listed or is inadequate to determine representation of stakeholder groups; or is submitted late. Vision statement is not included or does not address learning outcomes; is difficult to understand or is submitted late.

Identifies Contributors and Stakeholder Groups

Membership list is provided and describes constituencies represented. Submitted on time.

Vision Statement

Vision is comprehensive and deals with learning outcomes, not just technology outcomes. Clearly and concisely states your team's vision for using technology to improve learning; identifies who will be the users of technology and how it will be used to enhance learning; indicates the benefits that you envision will result from the use of technology by students, teachers, administrators or others. Submitted on time. Mission statement is focused on instructional outcomes and indicates clearly what the school or district will do to make its technology vision a reality; why the school or district wants to do this; and for whom the school or district is doing this. Submitted on time. Goals are broad, comprehensive and realistic in addressing teaching and learning needs. Goals clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By when? By how much? According to which instrument? Submitted on time.

Vision statement provides adequate description of how technology will improve learning but instructional outcomes not fully addressed. Submitted on time.

Mission Statement

Mission statement addresses learning outcomes but provides limited information about what, why, and for whom the school or district is doing the plan. Submitted on time. Goals are mostly equipment based and loosely linked to improvement plans. Submitted on time.

Mission statement is missing or does not address instructional outcomes. Provides incomplete and/or is difficult to understand; or is submitted late. Goals are absent or seem to be only equipment based; are not measurable; are incomplete, difficult to understand; or are submitted late. Objectives are absent or incomplete; are difficult to understand, unrealistic; appear unmeasurable, or are submitted late. Needs Assessment is absent, incomplete or is submitted late.

Goals

Objectives

Objectives are measurable and delineated from goals; they clearly define steps to be taken to achieve goals; are clear and realistic. Submitted on time.

Provides most of the objectives. Some objectives may not be readily attainable or measurable. Submitted on time. Technology has been assessed and analyzed, but may not include summaries of information from all elements in the technology surveys. Submitted on time.

Needs Assessment

Assessment is comprehensive and contains detailed information from hardware resources, technology needs assessment and Maturity Model Benchmark surveys; identifies use by students and staff, and training received and desired. Submitted on time.

General Issues

Clearly addresses issues of: staff development, technical support, technology standards; student access to computers; integrating new with old technologies; capacity of present facilities to accommodate new technologies; how technology resources and budget will be distributed among schools for equitable access; how needs of students with disabilities or limited English proficiency will be addressed; student access to computers; integrating new with old technologies; capacity of present facilities to accept new technologies, etc. Submitted on time. Clearly identifies the most important needs and challenges confronting the school or district and recommends the projects and steps to be taken to achieve the vision. Conclusions are strong and relevant. Submitted on time.

Adequately addresses most, but not all, of the most significant issues specified in Excellent column. Submitted on time.

General issues missing or very incomplete; difficult to understand; or submitted late.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations are adequately justified although the basis of some conclusions not entirely clear. Submitted on time.

Conclusions and recommendations are missing or are not adequately justified based on the information gathered in planning process; or submitted late. Policy issues are absent, incomplete, or difficult to understand; lack of Acceptable Use Policy draft; or submitted late. Technology and Learning statement absent or provides incomplete information on the current use or future role of technology in the school or district and how it will enhance learning; or submitted late. Technology standards, requirements and models are missing, incomplete, vague, or submitted late.

Acceptable Use Policy

Describes policies that are needed to ensure proper use of the technology resources (e.g., guidelines, software and facilities use policies, parental consent for Internet use, etc.) Includes well-written draft of Acceptable Use Policy. Submitted on time. Provides clear and strong description of how technology is currently used in learning environment and ways it will be used to achieve instructional outcomes; describes how technology will enhance curriculum and teaching and learning strategies; is tightly coupled to other reform efforts; indicates what students will do environment; submitted on time. Provides clear and comprehensive description of the capabilities of hardware and learning environments. It identifies minimum standards and requirements for computer hardware, software, and connectivity; describes the types of learning environments that currently exist and those to be created by the plan. Submitted on time. Clearly describes current and needed technology competencies; Describes how plan will take teachers and other staff from present level of technology competency and knowledge to the level of skill required in the plan; describes staff development strategies and recommendations for incentives and professional development resources. Submitted on time. Provides clear and comprehensive requirements and plans for services available and needed to support technology use (network, computer and software support). Submitted on time.

Provides an adequate description of the most relevant policy issues. Includes an adequate draft of Acceptable Use Policy. Submitted on time. Provides overview of the current and future use of technology in enhancing the teaching-learning process for students. Little detail on how technology will be integrated into learning and curriculum. Submitted on time. Provides general description of hardware, software and connectivity standards and requirements. Although clear, may miss some information elements. Submitted on time. Provides a general overview (not detailed) of current & needed technology competencies. Describes a few strategies and recommendations for incentives and resources. Submitted on time. Provides adequate but not comprehensive description of technical support requirements and services. Submitted on time.

Technology and Learning Statement

Technology Standards, Requirements, and Models for Technology and Learning

Staff Development

Staff Development is absent or provides only minimal information on current and needed technology competencies or how the plan will help staff achieve the needed competencies; or submitted late. Technology support is absent or provides vague or little information on technical support requirements for plan; or is submitted late.

Technical Support

Projects, Budgets, and Timelines

Provides a prioritized list of major tech plan projects, tasks and timelines. Provides budget summary estimate of capital expenses (hardware, software, facilities, infrastructure, staff development, tech support, etc.) Identifies possible alternative funding resources. Projects, timelines, and budgets are realistic and consistent with plan goals and objectives. Submitted on time.

Provides most, but not all, of the project, timelines, and budget estimate information. Appears to be generally consistent with plan goals. Submitted on time.

Projects, budgets, or timelines missing; provides vague or little information on project, budgets, or timelines; projects appear not relevant to plan goals; budget estimates appear incongruent with plan or unrealistic; or not submitted on time. Writing is difficult to understand. Evidence of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors

Clarity of Writing

Writing is concise and clear; uses active voice when appropriate. No misspelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes evident.

Writing is clear but unnecessary words are used. Meaning is not clear in some instances. Few errors in spelling/grammar.

Created by Dr. Paul Allen at the University of Texas

Our institution of higher learning is a public post-secondary institution of the Technical College System of Georgia, provides technical education and training support for evolving workforce development needs of Southwest Georgia. We have over 3,000 students enrolled each semester, attending from various demographics and ethics. Students ages range from 16 to late 70s, and races included but not limited to White, African American and Indian. With state of the art labs, one of our greatest accomplishments this year is the Academic Achievement Center lab which includes a small library option and iStudio rooms equipped with iPads for individual study in program areas. This labs technology plan was included in the 2008 Technology Assets Management Plan Project developed by the Technology Committee. The Committee has begun meeting again to assess the previous plan and develop a new plan based on the Institutions Technology needs. The current Technology plan has a clear introduction explaining why the 2008 plan was developed; the committee explained that the 2005 - 3 year plan was completed and there needed to be a new plan established before the FY2009. The new plan expresses the need to focus on the replacement and redeployment of computing resources, but will address other instructional technology assets such as digital cameras, camcorders, and projectors. In establishing the new plan the committee explained the goals and objectives of the plan. One of the main objectives was to identify the current technology assets and recommend emergency purchases. The primary focus of the committee in this technology plan was the academic computer labs, followed by looking at the current technology infrastructure. With these findings in evaluating our institutes technology plan I rated the institution high in giving the plan a 3 or 2 in ranking the components, because of the well written and organized plan. The institutions committee had a well thought out Technology Plan which also included the budget guidelines and project timeline that was going to be used for the plan. After implementing the plan the Committees plan was to review and assess the materials that were purchased and being used by the Students and Instructors. After the implementation of the plan the Committee included in the report that there would be a recommendation for redistribution of Technology Support from the IT Department, which also include Staff Development for Instructors on the new technology being replaced or redeployed.

The rankings of our Institutions technology plan would be a 3 on a scale from 1 to 3 with 3 being the highest. The plan seems to be well thought out by the Committee to include the timeline and the budget of having the plan completed. My only problem with the plan is that it could have included more advance usage of technology in 2008 other than digital cameras and projectors. I think that laptops and handheld devices should have been introduced in this plan. As a current member of the Technology Planning Committee, I look to help increase our Instructors knowledge on open source materials for them to use in the classroom. There has not been a plan written or used since development and implementation of the 2008 plan. The college looks to have a new plan completed before FY2014.