hwes strategic plan - keena d. crenshaw - home

HWES TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN Keena Crenshaw ETEC 6223

1

Strategic Plan for Health Wellness and Environmental Studies Magnet School

Abstract:

Health, Wellness, and Environmental Studies is a 1-6 elementary school located in Jonesboro,

Arkansas. A technology strategic plan has been created to help the school uphold their technology

vision. An evaluation found that certain needs have to be addressed to fulfill the current vision.

These needs include: professional development, technology integration, software use, future

hardware, and student technology proficiency. Actions have been developed in each of these areas

and an evaluation to monitor the progress of the strategic plan has been included.

VISION

The stakeholders in this project include a wide variety of district and building level employees as

well as students and parents. At the district level, Michael Summers (Director of Technology) and

Jane Jamison (Federal Programs and Testing) were included as stakeholders. At the building

administrative level, Tracie Hiller (principal) and Kim Anderson (assistant principal) have been

included. Building level staff include 1st Grade teachers (Traci Clayton; Parent, Debbie Gairhan, Kay

Richardson, Stacey Batoon, and Jenny Mayer), 2nd Grade teachers (Melinda Knight, Nancy Coleman,

Cheryl Reeves, Barbara Linam, and Justin Cook), 3rd Grade teachers (Staci Darr; Parent, Sandie

Henderson, Greta Felts, and Mary Helen Cox), 4th Grade teachers (Klugh Woodruff, Lisa Cole, and

Darcy Whitehurst), 5th Grade Teachers (Vicki Prater, April Miller and Toshiba Pugh), 6th Teachers

(Dana McFarland, Karen Nelson, Amanda Tyler and Billie Sue Hoggard), Special Education

Teachers (Heather Graham, Loyce Cowgill, Stacey Jackson and Dena Decker), the library media

specialist (Jamie Skelton), and computer lab support staff (Lisa Long and David Skaggs; Parent).

The technology vision for the school was developed by Keena Crenshaw, Kim Anderson (assistant

principal), Debbie Gairhan (technology committee), and grade level representatives and is as

follows:

“Every staff member, child and parent associated with Health Wellness and Environmental Studies

has a personal responsibility to promote the educational goals that have been determined by the

schools and community. Health, Wellness, and Environmental Studies Magnet will empower our


2

community of learners with the necessary skills and capabilities for success in the 21st Century.

Through technology integration, students will become empowered with the knowledge needed to

become an integral part the future workforce.”

This vision served as a guiding force in the development of this technology strategic plan. The main

focus of this plan is to address the long term needs of learning community in relation to technology

proficiency of students and professional development for staff.

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

An evaluation of Health, Wellness and Environmental Studies Magnet School was conducted to

determine the current technology and training opportunities available to support and enhance the

learning community. There are many steps to performing an evaluation including narrowing down

questions to ask, determining what information is needed, obtaining specific information and

analyzing the information that was found. Each of these will be discussed.

Questions specific to the focal point of the evaluation include:

1. What hardware and software is available for teacher/student use?

2. What technologies are used the most and the least?

3. What previous trainings have teachers had on available technology resources?

4. Are technology best practices being implemented?

5. How are students scoring in technology proficiency?

6. Does the current bandwidth and networking environment meet the needs of emerging wireless

technology?

Specific data sources included records of current technology and how often items were checked out.

Inventories of permanently established technology in classrooms including Smart technologies,

printers, and document cameras provided knowledge of what immediate resources teachers have at

their fingertips. Sign in sheets for district wide technology workshops and building level technology

professional development activities indicated how often teachers attended training. Observations of

teacher use of technology were used to distinguish which teachers were implementing technology.

The building technology survey provided answers to questions based upon the previous year.

Teacher lesson plans documented the implementation of the k-12 technology scope and sequence for


3

expected technology integration. Student portfolios with finished technology assignments required

by teachers indicated the transfer of technology skill to the learning community within the school.

A few barriers effected this evaluation. Teachers did not like to be interrupted during lessons some

did not answer surveys. Surveys may also exaggerate the use of technology in the classroom. The

availability of teachers for interviews was also an issue as well as accessing all student portfolios.

The information was collected and the facilitator met with a small group of stakeholders. Surveys

that were created provided the analysis of data automatically. Inventories sheets and observation

information was collected and placed into spreadsheets. Interviews were conducted with two grade

level teachers and special staff for a total of 16 staff members. They were asked how they felt about

available technology in the building. 81% of staff felt they had access to what was available and

incorporated it appropriately while the three staff members felt differently. Those staff members

were directly involved with technology in the building as part of the technology team. During

unannounced observations of the same interviewed teachers plus two additional teachers, 60% of

staff was not using technology during lessons.

Surveys, building equipment inventory, and building walkthroughs found that 87% of classrooms

have computer workstations, 95.7% of classrooms have a projector and screen, 87% of classrooms

have a document camera, 87% of classrooms have sympodiums, 69.6% of classrooms have a wireless

slate, and 52.2% of classrooms have a Smart response system. 100% of classrooms have a RedCat

Classroom amplification system. One classroom, the Bio-Lab, has a SmartBoard. Other equipment

available includes, Flip video cameras, camcorders, VCR’s, laptops. There are also overhead

projectors on cards as well as DVD players and boom boxes.

Survey results were also analyzed for frequency of software program use. Twenty-five teachers

responded to the survey. According to survey data, 62.5% of teachers indicated that they used the

software program Orchard. It is pulled from the server and is on every computer. It’s primary use is

for remediation and does not allow for teacher/student interaction together with technology. 58.3%

of teachers responded to using Microsoft word frequently and 40% of teachers responded to using

accelerated reader frequently. Other programs that are available but are used less than 20% of the

time included Smart Notebook, Inspiration, Kidspiration, Understanding Math, netTrekker, iLife

Suite, Excel, Access and Harcourt Math.


4

Questions related to a lack of technology integration revealed that 39.1% of teachers felt a lack of

training discouraged their use of technology and 47.8% stated they did not have time to incorporate

technology. However, these same teachers felt that installed multimedia equipment motivated their

students and improved critical thinking. No teacher thought that technology was not relevant to his

or her curricula. 17% of teachers felt that appropriate equipment is unavailable and 13% felt that

scheduling equipment is difficult.

Technology training opportunities are provided at the district level for all staff members. Two weeks

in the summer is dedicated to technology training on various topics is provided based upon what

teachers’ feel they need more training in. The school librarian schedules weekly technology

mentoring sessions on Wednesday afternoons after school. When new technology is purchased, the

district also schedules ½ day training in the use of that new technology. Lastly, a district level

technology coach is available by work order to meet the needs of each individual teacher. In relation

to the use of these training opportunities the survey indicated that 30% of teachers did not attend

summer technology sessions while 20% attended one, 25% attended two, and 20% attended three

sessions. The weekly after school technology sessions were attended by 93.3% of teachers in varying

numbers. Using the sign in sheets for the weekly sessions, the largest group of attendants was six

participants for Senteo Systems. The district work order system showed that there have been 164

work orders, which have increased by 50% over the past year, that have been completed at HWES

dealing with hardware trouble or technology integration issues.

In relation to how teachers incorporate technology and where they felt they needed assistance 50% of

teachers reported that they had never given electronic assignments. They also felt they needed major

assistance with burning files to a CD/DVD (17.4%), editing pictures (34.8%) creating presentations

(60.9%), using digital cameras (37.5%), and creating projects with the new apple mobile lab (91.3%).

These data are supported by the evaluation of student portfolios. Searching student portfolios for the

year resulted in a lack of electronically created assignments with only 10% of students submitting any

electronic projects. Of those 10% all projects only use Microsoft office software as the technology

feature.


5

Although there was a k-12 technology scope and sequence in place, 50% of teachers indicated they

had never assigned electronic projects to their students. Reading the responses asking which parts of

the technology scope and sequence they have completed, the answers consisted of:

• N/A

• I don’t do them

• I’ve used all I have

• most of the first half has been completed

• and I don’t know

• One teacher responded with the correct response listing the actual scope and sequence

activities.

This indicated that teachers were not familiar with the district technology scope and sequence for

students. (Appendix)

When interviewed, the PC computer lab support staff felt that she was not efficiently trained in all

programs to be able to help teachers or students. Training dealt with software that was pushed out

through the server. She received initial training, but no updated training as program changes were

made. The media specialist, who checks out hardware to teachers, wanted to find the best way to

deliver training to staff members at their convenience so they would take advantage of the different

hardware that was available to them for checkout throughout the year. She was aware that the teacher

checkout of technology was sporadic.

Classroom observations found that teachers were only using a fraction of the technologies that were

available. The current level of student technology proficiency, student technology assessments via

online tech assessments, and the assessment of student technology portfolios determined what

programs students use most often to complete assignments that incorporated technology. Through

these tests it was found that students were not reaching the required 85% level of technology

proficiency. Rather, students are at 49% proficient in regards to technology, and many student

portfolios utilized minimal technologies such as PowerPoint and Microsoft Word documents.

Classroom observations and student surveys are deemed best to determine if students are interacting

with technology during lessons. Two classroom walkthroughs were performed in 20 classrooms over


6

the course of one month. It was found that students were engaged in the traditional educational

environment and were not using technology to produce lessons. However, teachers were using

technology to present lessons in many ways including web based educational content (ie Discovery

Streaming, netTrekker, Visual Thesaurus), Smart Technologies, and Microsoft Office applications.

Several educational software programs (My Reading Coach and Project RIDE) were being utilized in

the resource room and many state provided (online based) software were available for daily use in the

office.

New mobile devices and laptops have caused wireless technology to become a necessity and should

be implemented in the near future. The district technology director, Michael Summers, stated that

bandwidth continues to pose a problem as more online resources become available. He is currently

working on finding ways to redirect bandwidth depending on the importance of the resource and

users’ needs.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Based upon the technology evaluation, a needs assessment was conducted to find where HWES needs

to be to meet their vision. Questions to determine the building technology needs in regards to training

that supports and enhances the development of best practices and contributes to the learning

community would include:

• How much training do teachers need?

• What level of technology proficiency is wanted from students?

• How many electronic projects do teachers need to assign for students?

• How is bandwidth and wireless devices currently being supported?

There are many data gathering methods that can be used including surveys and questionnaires,

interviews, focus groups, site visits and observations, and pre/posttests. Several data gathering

methods were used to answer to each of these questions. To find how much training teachers need,

teacher surveys were appropriate as well as teacher observations during the use of technology. The

district adopted the current 85% proficiency of all students by 8th grade. We are currently only

producing 49% of our students as technology proficient by 8th grade. Current student portfolios

contained work that did not meet the requirements of the grade level scope and sequence and district


7

expectations, the number of projects should target completion of all of the technology scope and

sequence expectations for each grade level

Needs related to teacher technology training, student technology proficiency, student electronic

projects, and wireless device support were addressed during a technology meeting. Other items

teachers thought were important were also added during the meeting. They were prioritized using the

Urgent/Important matrix. It is a simple 4 square matrix that divides needs according to importance

and urgency.

• Quadrant 1: This area held all important and urgent needs. Student difficulty logging into

Mac laptops were listed in this area.

• Quadrant 2: This area held import and non-urgent needs (Goals). Increasing student

technology proficiency, finding ways to make technology integration easier for teachers,

increasing professional development for teachers, supporting new wireless devices, making

current bandwidth work, increasing the use of software by teachers and students to enhance

the curriculum, and offering more support for technology integration after training were listed

in this quadrant.

• Quadrant 3: This held important but urgent needs (interruptions). Training to use web-based

software for personal projects was listed in this area.

• Quadrant 4: Training for personal communication devices such as cell phones, iPads, and

software that is not available in the building was included in this area.

Participants were asked how much time they spent using the technologies in each quadrant. Those

spending too much time in quadrant 1 were stressed because they cannot use what they want to

because of underlying issues. Those spending more time in quadrant 2 were aware of what is

available and willing to use it for technology integration. Those using technologies in quadrant 3 felt

they never really got a grip on how certain technologies work. They needed to let go of these things

and spend more time on other technologies. Those using technologies in quadrant 4 were unclear of

what they should be doing with the technology or how to integrate it. They felt as if technology was

just another “thing” in the box of tricks. Items that were in the non-urgent or unimportant were

ignored and actions were developed for the important, non-urgent tasks. Staff members will work

towards successful implementation of those technologies within the classroom.


8

Urgent Not Urgent

Quadrant 1

• Student difficulty logging into Mac

Laptops

Quadrant 2

• Increase student technology proficiency,

finding ways to make technology

integration easier for teachers,

• Increase professional development for

teachers,

• support new wireless devices, making

current bandwidth work,

• Increase the use of software by teachers

and students to enhance the curriculum

• Offer more support for technology

integration after training

Not

Impo

rtan

t

I

mpo

rtan

t

Quadrant 3

• Training to use web-based software for

personal projects

Quadrant 4

• Training for personal communication

devices such as cell phones, iPads, and

software not available in the building

Those items listed in quadrant two were finalized as being goals for the school. As a final statement,

data indicated there is a need to have more professional development and support for teachers after

training. Students need to increase their technology proficiency and teachers need to assign more

technology projects to students and increase their familiarity of current software available to fulfill

the implementation of the k-12 technology scope and sequence into the daily curriculum. Lastly, a

wireless environment as well as the bandwidth needs to accommodate emerging technologies as well.

All of these things will guide HWES toward the goal of creating a community of 21st century

educators and learners.


9

ACTION PLAN

Health Wellness and Environmental Studies proposed action plan addresses the needs within the

school and the measures that will be taken to close the gap between where the school is and where it

needs to be. The closing of the indicated gaps will help enable the school to empower our

community of learners with the necessary skills and capabilities for success in the 21st Century.

Technology integration will empower students with the needed knowledge to become an integral part

of the future workforce.

To identify the current status or where the school is several data points were gathered. In addition

data were gathered related to where the school needs to be in relation to these same areas. The results

indicate several gaps. These areas include: Student technology proficiency, implementation of the k-

12 technology scope and sequence, wireless technology and bandwidth, available software,

professional development, and the funding of technology.

Student technology pre and post tests were used to assess the understanding and use of computer

systems in a variety of ways. Classroom observations were also used and identified that students did

not use technology for assignments; rather teachers used technology to present information. Using

learning.com assessment, the district adopted the 220-scaled score as being proficient. Our students

are currently pretesting at a scaled score of 210, which is below proficiency. 49% of our students met

the proficiency standard and 85% is the number the district would like to attain. Thus, student

technology assessments, observations of student technology interaction in the classroom and student

technology portfolios indicate that student’s technology proficiency and interaction are not where

they should be and need to be increased. To build up to student proficiency level and decrease the

gap between current scores of 50% and desired 85% proficiency, it is recommended that

learning.com curriculum be purchased for student use in the computer lab.

A current k-12 technology scope and sequence was created for all teachers to adhere to. Observation

of teachers in the classroom and surveys found that teachers were not utilizing technology to assign

projects that would fulfill the implementation of the k-12 technology scope and sequence into their

daily curriculum. Surveys indicated that 50% of teachers have never created electronic project

assignments for students to be completed during the school year to fulfill the scope and sequence

implementation. A teacher survey found that 53.3% of teachers felt they did not have time to


10

incorporate technology into their curriculum despite the requirement to do so. To fill this gap and

help teachers meet the technology scope and sequence, additional teacher training specific to

technology incorporation should be provided. If future funds are available, a building level

technology coach should also be considered to assist teachers with incorporation of technology into

core curriculum classes. This will help make technology integration part of the current curriculum

rather than an additional subject to teach. 100% of teachers should assign electronic project

assignments at every grade level, which is a 50% increase, at least once a year.

Current building hardware resources were identified using surveys and information obtained during a

walkthrough. It was found that teachers have sufficient access to hardware within classrooms and

throughout the building. There is one student lab of 27 computers and a small library lab that consist

of 6 student computers. 92% of classroom teachers also have classroom student labs that consist of at

least 3 computers and one teacher computer. All classrooms are equipped with a projector, document

camera, Smart Podium and screen. There are 10 Smart response systems and 11 teachers have

wireless slates. There is also a Mobile Mac Laptop lab (with its own server) that is available for

teacher/student use. There are 8 flip videos, 2 camcorders and 2 scanners. There are 8 personal

printers and 4 network printers.

New mobile devices and laptops have caused wireless technology to become a necessity and should

be implemented in the near future. The district technology director, Michael Summers, stated that

bandwidth continues to pose a problem as more online resources become available. He is currently

working on finding ways to redirect bandwidth depending on the importance of the resource and

users’ needs.

Currently, key technology software in place for teacher and student use includes Smart Notebook,

Inspiration, Kidspiration, Understanding Math, Orchard, netTrekker, ILife Suite, Accelerated Reader,

Microsoft Office and Harcourt Math. Surveys have concluded that many of these programs are not

utilized. District software licenses were purchased to help facilitate instruction in core curriculum

classrooms. These licenses include:

• Smart Notebook: Presentation software used by teachers and/or students to present lessons.

• Inspiration/Kidspiration: Software to enhance writing.

• Understanding Math: Software to enhance math lessons.


11

• Orchard: Program to remediate math and language arts deficits students may be experiencing.

Reports can be printed off and given to parents during conferences.

• netTrekker: State approved web browser for students.

• iLife Suite: Software available on Mac mobile labs to enhance student projects

• Accelerated Reader: Used to help reading comprehension. 100% of students should have

goals set and be using the program weekly.

• Harcourt Math: Animated software to review/remediate math skills. Follows the district

adopted textbook and should be used weekly to supplement/enrich the curriculum.

These programs can be used as a resource to enhance curriculum using technology. They can help

build technology proficiency and/or create technology projects to meet the district technology scope

and sequence. To close this gap, teachers need to be instructed on how to use all available programs

with students in the classroom or lab environment. We will also evaluate future technology as it is

developed, assess our needs, and make appropriate selections that will enable our students and

teachers to utilize technology effectively.

There is no specific amount of money set aside for staff development and training needs are met as

they arise. Currently technology staff development takes place during the summer months, after

school and on professional development days. To support training efforts, two technology facilitators

are available on an individual basis to assist teachers with the use of available technologies.

Computer lab assistants are also available during scheduled computer lab time to assist with software

installed on lab student computers. The library media specialist assists with the arrangement of

technology staff development and software installed in the library. The staff takes part in yearly

technology surveys to help guide future PD offerings. Even though support is high, teacher turnout at

PD activities is not. Currently, the only the only technology professional development teachers must

meet is the required six hours. 37.5% of teachers did not sign up for summer workshops and only

6.7% of teachers have never been to a weekly technology mentoring session. HWES would like to

increase the percentage of teachers’ attendance to technology professional development that is

specific to district hardware and software by 12.5%. An increase of PD hours required by the district

may help to raise the percentage of teacher turnout at technology professional development activities.

A part time building level technology facilitator may help to close the gap on professional

development as teachers are currently utilizing this resource. HWES has had great success with


12

technology facilitators. There have been 157 technology work orders completed at HWES since

August 2011 and has proved to be an effective way of reaching teachers and their needs on their time.

The current facilities at HWES have been updated within the past year. 10 additional classrooms and

an art room have been added. The building is equipped with one computer lab (27 workstations) and

one Mac mobile lab (32 laptops), and a mini lab in the library (6 student stations). All classrooms

also have at a minimum 2 and a maximum of 4 student workstations. The computer lab manager

reported that grades 4,5, and 6 have two scheduled classes per week in the computer lab and 1st, 2nd,

and 3rd grades have one scheduled class per week. The mobile lab is available to all teachers via a

signup sheet. Based on reported needs the current facilities are sufficient.

Current financial information was created in spring 2010 for the school year. There has been an

increase in the millage, but that money has not been set for use in the district. The current financial

plan will be followed and no additional federal money will be set for use until the next year’s ACSIP

plan is created. Currently, money for technology funding comes from a variety of sources to include

federal, state and grant money. Teachers and schools are free to write grants for school and classroom

materials. This is the only way to add money to the current financial status. To close this gap,

teachers should be informed of grant opportunities that may arise.


13

Current 2010/2011 budget

Accelerated Reader Title I: 3500.00

Kidspiration ARRA 2500.00

Computer Lab Instructional Assistant Local Revenue: 30975.00

Lab manager for Mac Laptop Lab Title I Employee salaries

and benefits

31205.00

Tech. Integration Support Title I 2633.00

IXL Web-based Math software Title I 234.00

Additional projector for Smart Technology Title I 600.00

The staff at HW&ES will integrate technology

and instruction, following the JPS Scope and

Sequence of Technology Literacy K-12

TOTAL BUDGET 65,647

Smart Board for Bio Lab Local Revenue 26178.00

Students at HW&ES will have active, hands-on

experiences with science concepts and problem-

solving.

TOTAL BUDGET 26178.00

Renaissance Learning Title III 2450.00

Provide support for ELL students in learning the

English language.

TOTAL BUDGET 2450.00

Librarian to AAME conference PD State Money 600.00


14

Projected 2011-2012 Budget Items

Learning.com Curriculum $2800.00

Professional Development: How to Integrate

Technology Quickly in the Classroom (In house

professional development) Summer technology

session and offered throughout the year.

Attendants are paid $20/hour

Presenters are paid $30/hour (summer

sessions only)

Part time building level technology coach to

assist teachers with integration of technology

scope and sequence within their core curriculum

Salaries and benefits: $64,300

Professional Development on software purchased

to enhance the curriculum

Attendants are paid $20/hour

Presenters are paid $30/hour (summer

sessions only)

Inform teachers of grant opportunities by

administrator by e-mail

$0

Evaluation of future technologies by staff $0

Wireless Installation to support mobile devices:

25 enterprise class access points ($550 each),

wiring and labor to run network wire to the

access points ($5500), power over Ethernet

switches ($1000 each X 3), centralized

management controller ($500)

Brand of wireless: Aerohive

$22,750

Monitoring of bandwidth in 2010/2011 budget:

$18,000 for a 5-year subscription to the content

filter/bandwidth shaper. $3500 for bandwidth

aggregation device and three years of support.

There are not any additional costs at this time for

maintenance and monitoring of bandwidth.

$0


15

Three Year Timeline

Year 1

May

2011

• District Technology Survey

• Start scheduling technology professional development

• Student Technology Proficiency Post-Test

• ACSIP BUDGET DUE (Include technology actions in Priority 4 of the building ACSIP Plan)

June

2011

• Technology professional development

• Begin to work on bandwidth/wireless environment

Aug.

2011


• Finish wireless environment

• Purchase of learning.com license for elementary schools

Sept.

2011

• Survey: Evaluation of professional development

Oct.

2011

• Ongoing Observations of students portfolios and teacher use of technology

• Student Technology Proficiency Pre-Test

Nov.

2011

• Focus Group to help determine attitudes on how plan is moving forward and make adjustments

• Grant Opportunities E-Mail

Dec.

2011

• Survey to evaluate progress of strategic plan.

Jan.

2012

• Conduct interviews to monitor plan and make adjustments

• Evaluate technology for the next year recommendations

Feb.

2012

• Continuation of observation for implementation

Mar.

2012

• Strategic Planning Survey for individual opinions about effectiveness of the planning process

April

2012

• Focus Group for attitudes and feelings about effectiveness of strategic plan

Year 2

May

2012




• Potential hiring of building level technology coach (if funding will allow)

• ACSIP BUDGET DUE (Include technology actions in Priority 4)

June

2012


Aug.

2012


•

Sept.

2011


Oct.

2012



Nov. • Focus Group to help determine attitudes on how plan is moving forward and make adjustments


16

2012 • Grant Opportunities E-Mail

Dec.

2012


Jan.

2013



Feb.

2013


Mar.

2013


April

2013


Year 3

May

2013




• ACSIP BUDGET DUE (Include Technology Actions in Priority 4)

June

2013


Aug.

2013


•

Sept.

2013


Oct.

2013



Nov.

2013

• Focus Group to help determine attitudes on how plan is moving forward and make adjustments

• Grant Opportunities E-Mail

Dec.

2013


Jan.

2014



Feb.

2014


Mar.

2014


April

2012


The action plan created for Health, Wellness and Environmental Studies made several

recommendations. Those included:


17

• Purchase Learning.com curriculum for elementary students to increase student technology

proficiency.

• Increase teacher professional development activities to enable teachers to utilize technology

and become an asset to the school learning community.

• If funds permit, the hiring of a building level technology coach to provide one on one training

for teachers

• Increase bandwidth and provide wireless internet access to support new and emerging

wireless technologies.

• Evaluate future technology and make purchases that will enable students and teachers to

utilize technology effectively

• Inform staff of grant opportunities

EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluating the progress of a strategic plan should be done on a regular basis to monitor progress,

determine if anything is preventing the plan from moving forward, determine if there is a need to

revise objectives, or decided if any adjustments should be made. To determine if the technology

strategic plan is on track for Health, Wellness, and Environmental Studies, surveys, observations,

focus groups and interviews will be used.

A survey is a tool to gather information about individuals. It may focus on individuals or serve to

collect opinions. They can be administered in different ways. The researcher can ask questions and

record answers, a questionnaire can be given (paper or online) and participants fill out the survey on

their own. This allows a large amount of data to be gathered in a short period of time. With the

correct questions, they can be created quickly and administered easily. One disadvantage is that

answer choices may not reflect how participants truly feel.

Observations monitor and evaluate the plan progress. Notes will be taken on what works/does not

work well. Classroom observations will help determine student progress based upon technology

infused lessons. Observations of technology facilitator and assistance they offer to see if instruction

is beneficial. Based upon observations, judgments can then be made on changes that may be needed.


18

A focus group interview is used to obtain perspectives about the same topic. You can gain insights

into the shared understanding of the strategic plan and how individuals are influence by others in a

group situation. Attitudes, feelings and beliefs are gathered. A moderator with group leadership and

interpersonal skills is needed.

Interviews can be conducted face to face or over the telephone. A set of interview questions are

asked while the researcher records the answers (the researcher may opt to record the interview). The

researcher has the opportunity to clarify answers that are given unlike in a survey situation.

Evaluation of the strategic plan will take place at the end of every 9 week grading period (October,

December, and March).

In October, observations of student portfolios and teacher use of technology will be used to evaluate

if additional professional development has increased teacher use of technology and if students are

gaining technology proficiency through the use of more technology in the classroom.


19

Student portfolios:

TECHNOLOGY

USED FOR PROJECT

Number of Students

Grade 4

Number of Students

Grade 5

Number of Students

Grade 6

PowerPoint

Excel

Word

Access

Notebook 10

Photo Story

Photo Booth

Garage Band

iMovie

iPhoto

Teacher/Student Technology Interaction Observation:

1. Teacher: ____________________________________________________________

2. Lesson: _____________________________________________________________

3. Technology used: ____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

4. Way technology used: ________________________________________________

5. Teacher comfort with technology used (1-10 with one being having a lot of difficulty with

using technology easily): ______

6. Student interaction with technology: ___________________________________


20

7. Student Project given: ________________________________________________

8. Student comfort with technology used (1-10 with one being having a lot of difficulty with

using technology easily): _____

In December, a focus group will help determine attitudes on how the plan is moving forward. Jamie

Skelton, librarian, will act as the moderator for this meeting. Adjustments will be made if needed.

Chart Paper and markers will be needed.

Questions to ask:

1. What is your overall understanding of the strategic plan?

2. Do you feel goals and objectives are being accomplished? If not, what changes need to be

made?

3. Do you feel there are problems that may keep the plan from moving forward?

4. What is going well?

5. What differences, if any have you seen taking place within the school in respect to the use of

technology?


21

In March, a survey will be used to monitor the plan and make any additional adjustments.

Questions to ask:

1. Do you have an understanding of HWES technology plan

A. No understanding

B. Little understanding

C. Moderate understanding

D. Full understanding

2. Do you feel that goals and objectives are being met?

A. No goals and objectives have been met

B. One goal/objective has been met

C. Two goals/objectives have been met

D. All goals and objectives have been met

3. What area of the strategic plan is unclear?

A. Vision

B. Action Plan

C. Evaluations

D. All parts of the plan are unclear

4. Have any purchases related to the plan been made that you are aware of?

A. Yes

B. No

If yes, please list what purchases you are aware of

5. Have you been offered any one on one professional development?

A. Yes

B. No

If yes, what did you specifically receive training on?

6. Do you feel that any changes to the plan need to be made at this point?


22

One Year Timeline of Evaluation

May 2011 • District Technology Survey

• Start scheduling technology professional

development


June 2011 • Technology professional development

August 2011 • Technology professional development

September 2011 • Survey: Evaluation of professional

development

October 2011 • Ongoing Observations of students

portfolios and teacher use of technology

December 2011 • Focus Group to help determine attitudes on

how plan is moving forward and make

adjustments

March 2012 • Survey staff to monitor plan and make

adjustments

APPENDIX


23

TEACHER TECHNOLOGY SURVEY


24


25


26


27


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35

hwes strategic plan - keena d. crenshaw - home

Documents