Running Head: Technology Planning Paper 1

Broadening and Targeting Professional Developments

Stephanie Galczynski
Loyola University
ET 680
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 2

Planning for a Plan

The world is calling for 21st Century visionaries. Technology is changing daily and we as

teachers need to learn to keep up. Collaboration and creativity foster a culture where students

feel comfortable experimenting and investigating. Ridgely Middle School, located in Timonium

Maryland, currently hosts 1188 students and a faculty of 80 teachers. Ridgely Middle School is

a Blue Ribbon-award winning middle school that serves students in sixth through eighth grades

as part of the Baltimore County Public Schools.

Ridgely is a dynamic learning environment where students are encouraged to use 21st

Century skills in order to become college and career ready. We provide enriching opportunities

for all students through a well-rounded curriculum. Ridgely consistently demonstrates deliberate

excellence through outstanding performance in local, statewide and national assessments

(“Ridgely is a dynamic,” 2018).

Analysis of Current Situation

In September, 2013, Ridgley Middle became a lighthouse school. The pilot program’s

focus was to begin the integration of 1:1 devices for staff and students. Teachers and staff

received devices immediately along with sixth grade students. In 2014, sixth and seventh grade

students received devices and in 2015, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students were now one to

one.

Ridgely’s staff communicate openly, with the idea of promoting a positive, healthy, and

supportive environment. Many teachers took the initiative when we received devices to embrace

their usefulness in the classroom, but many remained stagnant. Over a four year period,

Ridgely’s staff received school and county-wide professional developments which were aimed to

support technology introduction and effective implementation. To kick off our 2015 school year,
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 3

a SAMR representative delivered an introductory speech to our entire faculty. This was the first

time we were asked to evaluate our lessons with respect to its model. Almost 100% of the

teaching faculty admitted they felt their current lesson planning with respect to technology

resembled the substitution phase of the SAMR model. It was evident we needed more

professional development and more teachers buying into technology integration.

Roger’s Perceived Attributes Theory focuses on how and why people in a social situation

may want to adopt a new technology or innovation. His diffusion theory consists of five

sections: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. The

proposed innovation is to create new ways to help educators professionally develop themselves

when it comes to utilizing and implementing the technology tools used in Baltimore County’s

Learning Management System. A general concern once a professional development occurs is

there is very little or no follow up. Teachers have very little support on a daily basis when it

comes to implementing the tech tools. There are very limited pathways for teachers to take when

it comes to questions and practices. Something new needs to happen.

Roger defines Diffusion of Innovation to explain how, over time, an idea or product gains

momentum and diffuses (or spreads) through a specific population or social system. The end

result of this diffusion is that people, as part of a social system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or

product. The key to adoption is that the person must perceive the idea, behavior, or product as

new or innovative. It is through this that diffusion is possible (LaMorte, 2016). This is where I

began thinking of how I could help. How could I support the integration of technology tools,

support curriculum, and make teachers feel the innovation could be valuable and effective? The

idea of creating a better way to professionally develop teachers came to mind, but I needed help.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 4

Creating a technology committee and involving the right stakeholders was going to be key to our

success. This was my avenue toward adoption.

Roger’s Perceived Attributes Theory identifies five characteristics of an innovation which

have been shown to affect the rate of its adoption in a community. The rate of adoption is

partially influenced by perceived attributes namely: relative advantage, compatibility,

complexity, trialability, and observability (Ibrahim, 2016).

The use of implementing a school-wide professional development process supported by

educators and administration addressed the relative advantage stage of the theory. Currently,

professional development is provided by administration and teachers have little input when it

comes to what is being presented. The current tech developments are only good for teachers

who are ready at that moment to use the technology. It does nothing for teachers who are not

ready for the technology or have no idea how to implement it in their classroom or how it

supports their curriculum. Once the development has taken place, there is generally no follow up

sessions. Teachers are on their own to work with the tech and figure it out. Besides the STAT

teacher, there is nowhere to get help when you are ready. No organizational folders have been

created to support blended learning access to the tech tools. Teachers are currently not able to

address and access past professional developments, there exist no tutorials to model integration,

and there is no monthly follow up. The proposed innovation would address teacher input along

with continued year-long follow up, digital storage for tutorials and teacher created tech

implemented lessons. Compatibility is also addressed with this proposed innovation. Teachers

are able to use a learning management system which is already set up by their county. The

county also supports a cloud-based storage unit, OneDrive, where support-based tutorials and

lessons can be stored. The administrative staff will create school-time for these meetings and
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 5

supports to occur. Complexity is hypothesized to be easy to adapt to. The new idea of teacher-

leader professional developments will support the staff along with creating a structure for

continued learning. Trialability will allow for the innovation to be adopted by the users. It is the

opportunity to work with teacher-leaders, tech tools, and support a self-paced learning

atmosphere. Users have the opportunity to participate and provide feedback in case the

innovation needs to be edited or modified. Observability will result from potential users sharing

their experiences with others. Word of mouth will be one way to support adoptability. School-

wide professional developments will also be created in order to keep staff informed. We will

share our successes, concerns, and provide and reflect on feedback.

Ely’s Conditions of Change will also help create and structure our innovative path. As

we identify each of Ely’s Eight Conditions, we want to analyze how the school is currently

fulfilling each of the eight. The use of a rating scale of 1 to 10 is used to quantify fulfillment.

One being the lowest and ten being the highest with respect to how well Ridgely has tended to

each condition. The first of Ely’s conditions is dissatisfaction with the status quo. Ridgely has

identified they want to improve the use and implementation of tech tools. They have provided

professional developments during faculty meetings and the STAT teacher has provided several

small group professional developments during grade level meetings and after school. As

teachers appreciate the school and STAT teacher’s efforts, no teacher input was used on deciding

on the content of the developments and little follow up has been provided to the whole group.

Therefore a rating of 6/10 is given. Ely’s second condition, sufficient knowledge and skills

would be rated at a 5/10. We have our STAT teacher and a few teacher leaders who have

provided additional small group professional developments. In order for more teachers to adopt

the knowledge and skills it takes to implement change, we need to create more teacher leaders in
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 6

the school. Ely’s third condition, availability of resources receives an 8/10. All teachers have

access to the tech tools through BCPSOne, but we lack the personal necessary to affect change.

His fourth condition, availability of time, receives a 3/10. Teachers receive little school-time to

analyze the tech tools. Administration and tech leaders ask for little input when preparing

professional developments and schedules. Ely’s fifth condition, reward or incentives receives

6/10. The administration and STAT teacher offer paid professional developments along with

snacks and drinks. These incentives are used to entice educators to come in during their lesson

planning times and after school. Many teachers are also intrinsically motivated to learn. Even

though some professional developments are offered after school, and with no pay, the STAT

teacher still has teachers show up to participate. This brings in Ely’s sixth condition,

participation. This condition would be rated at a 3/10. Participates have little say when it

comes to what they are experiencing in professional developments. As we receive technology,

the school sets up general supports, but we are not surveyed to identify our learning desires.

Commitment, Ely’s seventh condition receives 4/10. Teachers are interested in innovation but

the commitment level tends to fizzle out. Teachers have a lot on their plate and finding time to

meet and learn something new takes a back seat to lesson planning, duties, coverages, family,

and further schooling. Ely’s last condition, leadership receives 5/10. There is observable

leadership from administration and our STAT teacher but it lacks being truly effective since it is

missing the idea of a process. Professional developments initially motivate teachers, but there is

a lack of follow through. People have these great ideas, but no plans are introduced to continue

the great ideas. Teachers are left excited about a product but no clear picture on how to

continually implement it.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 7

There are four of Ely’s conditions which need the most work in order for our innovation

to take place. The first is availability of time. Administration needs to support the idea of using

school-time to allow professional development to occur. Set times need to be created otherwise

teachers will identify other responsibilities which take priority. I have already spoken with the

principal about finding a way to create school-time for teachers. We talked about creating a tech

committee which would meet during committee times on Mondays, directly after school. We

also talked about the possibility of using small segments of duty time to work with teachers one

on one. This would allow teachers to develop the tech tool they wish to work with most.

Additional resources such as representatives from third parties could be utilized. Having a

representative from VoiceThread or Discovery Learning would promote motivation and

excitement. Participation is the second condition which raises concern. Teachers want to be

involved in the decision making process. They want to have a voice on how they are spending

their time. Not everyone needs the same tech tools. Surveys will be utilized to identify the tools

the tech committee will present. We will find cross-curricular opportunities for teachers who are

looking for tools to help support specific curriculums. With this, teachers can work together,

communicating their needs and successes. The third condition which requires attention is

commitment. Since the new endeavor will take time, teachers and staff will need to make a

commitment to making it work. Implementation of the innovation will need to be celebrated and

shared in order to keep teachers motivated and dedicated. The fourth condition which will need

work is leadership. We have great leaders in the building. Our administration and STAT teacher

are great supports, but what we need is more teacher-leaders to step up and buy in to supporting

each other. I have already begun to invite teachers who have observable motivation to develop

themselves. I have spoken with members from several departments and shared my vision. They
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 8

seemed excited and motivated to be part of the process. They see the need for change and want

to be part of it. We can also reach outside our school. The Guidebook mentions utilizing

community resources. Support does not need to be monetary. Since Baltimore County supports

and pays for technology tools, additional representatives could be asked to come to the school

and provide detailed professional developments. The PTA could be involved by volunteering to

help with incentives and donations. With more teacher-leaders and community resources we can

diffuse the innovation throughout the departments and our school.

As we continue to examine our current situation, we also should examine additional

models for change. Ridgely Middle School teachers fall into all levels of the ACOT model.

There are still a few teachers in the Entry level of the ACOT model. Some teachers have still not

taken opportunities to develop and gain experience with technology. They are learning the

fundamentals but are not taking it upon themselves to elevate their learning. It is only a small

percentage of teachers but I do still hear them talk in faculty rooms about how frustrating

incorporating the technology can be. Since we became a 1:1 school with devices in 2013, most

teachers have developed fluency with the technology. We are held accountable by

administration through formal and informal observations to show an incorporation and use of

technology. Therefore a large part of the faculty has made it to the Adoption level of the ACOT

model. Several teachers from different contents have joined together to attend our STAT

teacher’s after school meetings. This has enhanced their ability to incorporate technology into

their lessons. A few teachers have reached the Adaption level, showing they have expanded

instruction to include project based learning. A team of teachers worked together to create

lessons to have students create an outdoor space for leisurely activities. Students used their

devices appropriately to calculate necessary measures, design architectural aspects, investigate

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 9

and research structures, and communicate with others through collaborative electronic settings. I

am not sure if anyone has reached the Invention level of the ACOT model. I have not seen

evidence of such, but cannot rule out the idea of it.

One of the teachers I interviewed categorized herself as being in the Adaption level of the

ACOT model. She felt she was creating more engagement in her lessons and using the

technology to support math instruction. She used Geogebra to have students investigate the idea

of the midsegment of a triangle. Nothing new was invented, but the technology enhanced the

“what do you notice, what do you wonder” portion of instruction. A second teacher I

interviewed was one of the teachers involved with project based learning. He used the

technology to enhance the creation of an outdoor space. Students had an outline, but had to

investigate, design, and build the space. They used the internet along with programs to support

their work. By observing these characteristics, this teacher most aligned with being in the

Appropriation level. A third teacher I interviewed is in the Entry level of the ACOT model. He

still uses handwritten lesson plans, gradebook, and worksheets when delivering instruction. He

mentioned how his content leader was using Skype to compare and contrast living conditions in

another country. He chose to use the textbook and a worksheet to have students compare and

contrast. While the textbook had appropriate pictures, he did not take advantage of the

collaboration, conversation, questioning, extensions, and connections the Skype activity

included. I imagine the activity would have been memorable and authentic to students, allowing

them to create a relationship with the content.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 10

Stakeholders

Stakeholder groups I would like to have involved in the planning process is our STAT

teacher, at least one administrator, content representatives, grade-level representatives, our

librarian, and a few tech-savvy teachers. These are the staff who are going to help support

creating, planning, evaluating, and revising. We want educators who are open to collaborating,

developing, and sharing. It may eventually be appropriate to have a PTA representative there to

provide feedback and potential funding support.

In order to form the technology committee, I would like to have our STAT teacher, who

has already been offering specific professional developments to individuals as well as the entire

staff during faculty meetings. I would have myself along with two additional math teachers who

are tech savvy. We have been using four specific tech tools this year through BCPS One and

want to share and develop our findings with additional school staff to support instruction.

Additionally, I have a specific science teacher in mind, two reading teachers, our social studies

department chair, and our 8th grade team leader. All of these educators are teacher-leaders or

have the potential to be. I would also like to see our principal be part of the tech committee

along with our librarian. They could help support the committee with possible funding and

resources. Overall, the educators who come to mind are ones who have shown they are risk

takers and intrinsically implement technology.

When it comes to stakeholder roles, there are a handful which need to be identified. I

would initially take the role as leader. Since this is my vision, I want to make sure it is

organized, well structured, and identifies specific goals. I would work with the teacher-leaders

to develop and categorize specific tech tools we feel would best support teachers and our

innovation. Our STAT teacher would record and organize professional development tutorials
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 11

and model lesson plans. Using OneDrive, she would create folders to help share materials with

others. I would work with administration to schedule meetings at a time that is convenient for

stakeholders. Teacher-leaders and I would create job descriptions and together we would decide

on the most appropriate person for each. There is nothing saying people couldn’t switch jobs as

they continue to grow. Administration and I could work together to schedule times to visit other

schools which already have tech committees in place. We would analyze our observations and

feedback in order to recommend changes and updates. As far as I can see, this is the only

Some stakeholders are going to have to find and develop additional PDs for participants.

Others, like administration, will concentrate on funding and incentives. The teacher-leaders in

the building are the ones who will concentrate on the focused tech tools. These participants are

the ones who have surveyed, identified, and created the targeted professional developments

which will be shared with faculty and staff.

The educators I have in mind are self-motivated and probably need little reinforcement to

remain involved. But in order to keep them motivated, I would be a good listener and find ways

to provide them with the resources they require. It would also be great to be able to offer

participants funds to keep them interested. They are the ones who will be collaborating, creating,

and planning the professional developments. It would be nice to show them their time is

appreciated by also offering them school-time to work. Instead of going to a weekly grade-level

meeting, we could alternate meetings, allowing the tech committee to gather and create targeted

PDs per instructional needs. This school-time would allow for opportunities for implementation

and follow-up.

In order to keep the involvement going, I would request support from administration and

PTA members. Parents and community members could provide feedback about how tech
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 12

implementation is having a positive effect on student success. Administration could also offer

incentives and additional professional developments provided at county and state levels. These

PDs could be used to support and enhance members who are already part of the tech committee.

Continual support and finding new ways to utilize technology is important at all levels.

Ideally, it would be sensible to have a secretary present during our committee meetings to

help organize and record data. Even though this role will be handled by our STAT teacher, her

time is more valuable spent working with other teachers and technology. It would also be

helpful to have a secretary help us with schedules and adjustments. This would allow the teacher

leaders time to concentrate on creating and collaborating with peers. At the moment, this would

be the only difference from the “ideal” stakeholders listed in the Guidebook.

Since I will be enlisting the help of other stakeholders to make this innovation successful,

we will have to work together to support some of Ely’s conditions. We will first work on

participation. Teachers have been asked to change and change and change again. While many

of these changes seem reasonable, too many of them have fizzled out from lack of support and

follow through. We want participants involved in the identification of the tech tools and how

they wish to receive professional development. If we can make it focused on their needs and

work within their schedule, we will have their support. We want to open the doors of

communication and allow learners to have more ownership of their professional developments.

The second of Ely’s conditions we need assistance with is availability of time. We need

administrators to carve out school time for us to meet. Teachers’ plates are full. I do not want

this to be one more thing that cuts into their valuable time. Having dedicated committee meeting

times is essential to success. The third condition which needs support is leadership. Not just

leadership from me and administration, but leadership from out teacher leaders. These teachers
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 13

are the ones helping to create the materials, lessons, and tutorials necessary to help others

implement the tech tools. Not only do they need to show others how the technology works, they

also need to provide pedagogy strategies. Within all this will fall rewards and incentives and

commitment. We will need a strong core in order to branch out from here.

Plan of Action for Technology Planning

In order to connect with teachers, I want them to feel how important and necessary

innovative change can be. My vision statement would focus on making teachers believe we

value their time and how we want it spent effectively. We do not want teachers to be afraid of

technology tools. We want to show them new opportunities when it comes to their role in the

classroom. They do not to do all the work. Placing more responsibility of learning on students,

setting goals, and connecting to real world applications is what we want our future classrooms to

resemble. The mission statement will focus on how we can customize our learning. Targeted

professional developments to help us achieve our goals. Integrating technology will engage and

enhance learning environments. Students will become more self-reliant and communicate

openly to promote healthy learning environments. These are several issues students currently

struggle with. The confidence and ability to ask questions when needed will increase. Teachers

can collaborate with students and staff creating a more blended learning environment. In order

to create these environments, action steps need to be taken.

An action step I would have to take to support staff development and one of Ely’s

conditions is to work in school time for teachers to have time to work with and ask questions

about the new technology. It is obvious there is a need and desire for change. There is a
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 14

dissatisfaction with the way things are. Teachers want more attention to detail when they are

learning new technology, especially when trying to implement it. They are looking for more

targeted instruction along with support from administration for more school-time to work on new

tech tools. They also want support from tech leaders in the school. They want to feel their time is

spent effectively. If administration cannot offer them school time, teachers are asking to be

compensated for their time. They also want to have a voice in what they are learning. One person

mentioned meeting for faculty meetings and having materials dumped on them, even if the

material did not pertain to them at the moment. This is not the type of professional

developments we want people thinking of when they think of Ridgely.

In order to help deliver new technology to teachers and staff, I have come up with a few

ideas to help us get started. The first is to meet with administration and create a technology

committee. My hope is the committee could meet during committee times which is once a month

on Mondays. This would create school time to work on learning and implementing new

technologies and would also allow for follow-up. In talking with other teachers, many feel as

though technical PDs are delivered and then never talked about again. There is no whole group,

small group, or individual follow-up. The tech committee could meet these needs while

delivering small group and individual support. I have already begun recruiting tech leaders to

help deliver instruction. I plan on sending out a survey of up to 5 tech tools teachers would like

to work with the most. After receiving feedback, the tech leaders could choose three to begin

researching and developing. Tech leaders would work together to create face to face and online

tutorials. Teachers and staff would remain involved because they would be receiving follow-up

and direct instruction from the committee. Meeting during committee times would also keep

them involved since we are required by Baltimore County to meet as a school once a week.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 15

Teachers and staff would also have a say in what they are learning since instruction would be

developed from the surveys. The Guidebook also suggests considering establishing collaborative

and cooperative learning experiences, developing instructional methods to meet individual needs

and learning styles, establishing methods of contribution, and developing ways to evaluate and

assist others in learning. These considerations are essential for the success of the innovation.

In order to evaluate the technology plan’s development, I took a look at two plans from

moodle. One plan which was helpful was the one from Franklin High School in California. The

action plan aligned with mine, reinforcing the idea of beginning a technology team. It also

focused on providing faculty with collaboration time to assist each other with planning for

integrated lessons. This is something I hope to accomplish. I am surprised to see there is only

one resource listed for the tech team. I am thinking of enlisting the help of teacher leaders and

our STAT teacher. Generally speaking, the more support we have, the more successful we can

be.

The second plan written for Briarmeadow Charter School in Texas, focused on tech

skills, engagement, resources, and assessments. I would have like to see more teacher

involvement included but one aspect I did like was the focus on assessment. They outlined

specific objectives and assessment goals. As I continue, I want to think about how I am going to

measure our progress.

Conclusion

Overall, I feel I am off and running. The idea of a technology committee along with

blended learning, and support from stakeholders will motivate and guide our journey. Another

concept I am reminding participants of is the idea that this is a process. It is going to take time
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 16

for all involved to develop. We need to support one another and set realistic goals which are

measurable and attainable. We have a supportive and invested staff at Ridgely. Working

together we can redefine how we professionally develop ourselves and in turn, develop our

students.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 17

References

Ibrahim, A. (2015, March). Perceived Attributes of Diffusion of Innovation Theory as a

Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Non-Use of Digital Library Services.

Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309479883_Perceived_Attributes_of_Diffusion

_of_Innovation_Theory_as_a_Theoretical_Framework_for_understanding_the_Non-

Use_of_Digital_Library_Services

LaMorte, W. (2016, April 28). Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Retrieved from

http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPHModules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/Behavioral

ChangeTheories4.html

Ridgely is a dynamic learning environment where students are encouraged to use 21st Century

skills in order to become college and career ready. (2018, March 10). Retrieved from

http://ridgelyms.bcps.org/