Collaborative+Analysis

=﻿Collaborative Analysis=

As a group (Heidi Aldrich, Kathy Button, Aaron Hughes, and Cari Vanderheyden), we all have very unique backgrounds and occupations within the educational setting. We consist of (respectively) a curriculum and instruction specialist at Gratiot-Isabella RESD (GIRESD), a substitute teacher within Brighton Area School District (Brighton), a high school math and social studies teacher at Owosso High School (Owosso), and a high school business and graphic arts teacher at Hononegah High School (Hononegah) in Rockton, Illinois. Because of these unique backgrounds, we all have different access to, and different utilizations of, technology within our daily work environment. In the following paragraphs we will compare the level of technology development and implementation between our group member schools and school districts. We will complete this analysis based on the categories of hardware, software, level of training and trained personnel, and the evaluation process of student achievement.

Hardware Availability
As a group, all four schools and school districts were categorized as having adequate computer hardware. Looking at the available hardware technologies and comparing them with the number of students, teachers, and support staff, we decided that all of our schools had an acceptable level of hardware technology.

To support our opinion that Gratiot-Isabella RESD, Brighton Area School District, Owosso High School, and Hononegah High School have adequate hardware technologies, we present the following information. All schools that were surveyed use Microsoft Windows as the primary computer platform. A few classrooms run Macintosh. The available computer models at our schools include: Dell and IBM laptops, Optiplex and Gateway desktops, iPads, iPhones, Droids, Smart Slates, and TI calculators. Brighton Area School District runs Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system, whereas GIRESD, Owosso, and Hononegah run Windows XP Operating Systems.

Computer add-on devices which commonly used at all of our schools include: digital cameras, scanners, desktop printers, projectors, document cameras, fax machines, public printers and copiers. Additional add-on devices include: digital movie cameras, satellite dish, televisions, video microscopes, LCD projection devices, graphing calculators, adaptive devices, external hard drives, flash memory drives, and electronic whiteboards.

The computer configurations and high-speed Internet connections used at our schools include: LAN through Ncomputing at Brighton, LAN at GIRESD through Merit (files shared through Novell Client), LAN with a minimum 2.4 GHz processor, 160 GB hard drive and 2 gigs RAM at Owosso, and LAN with a minimum 3 GHz processor, 2 gigs RAM at Hononegah (Files shared through Novell Client).

With the variety and number of software programs available for educational use, as a group we found that there were many commonalities. While there are some programs that are unique to districts, many are found to be used in more than one. Throughout Gratiot-Isabella RESD, Brighton Area School District, Owosso High School, and Hononegah High School, each seems to have a choice of what programs a staff member can choose from as well.
 * Software Availability**

The common usage of programs is clear in the multimedia authoring programs with 3 districts using PowerPoint. The district that does not use PowerPoint, uses Adobe 9 which is also used by another district. Firefox and Internet Explorer are the two common internet programs that are available, again showing the common usage. Safari is also used. In some form, all districts utilize Microsoft Office for their word processing and spreadsheet needs.

The two areas where the biggest discrepancies in what software is used between districts is the Computer Assisted Instruction software and statistical programs that are used. There is no overlap with the programs used with CAI. The programs that our districts use include Accelerated Reader, Study Island, APEX Learning, Autodesk’s AutoCAD, Moodle, Adobe Connect, and Webex. With statistical programs, there are two districts who utilize Kuta Software Infinite math programs, as well as two districts who use PowerSchool. In addition, DataDirector is used in two districts, but none of these programs are used in more than two districts.

One of the biggest indicators of the troubling economic issues that are present in our technology comparison is the frequency of updates. Three of four districts are only able to update software when funds are available. Upgrades appear to be most common with word processing and spreadsheet software.

Technology based professional development differs from one school district to another, and from a local school district to and intermediate school district (ISD). Teaching staff at all districts surveyed, Owosso High School, Hononegah High School, Brighton School District, and Gratiot-Isabella RESD maintain a 1:1 teacher to computer ratio. While this is remarkable, without the necessary professional development training, this critical instructional resource is not being used to its full potential.
 * Professional Development **

Teachers and administrators at the schools surveyed enter with a basic understanding on how to use a computer. The amount of technologically focused professional development offered is based primarily on staff requests, time allotted for professional development, and funding. Trainings range from e-mail updates for one district to an excess of five technology focused workshops per year for another. The average amount of professional development training being offered is one to two days and is held in an in-service format. Teachers are saying this isn’t enough. Sixty-five percent of the teachers surveyed at Hononegah High School stated that they would like additional technology training. Comparatively, teachers at Owosso High School would prefer for their district to elaborate further into topics covered, rather than focusing on multiple early implementation type trainings. ISD professional development is staff focused and led; meaning the staff decides about 75% of the training topics and a train-the-trainer model is implemented.

In-Service trainings that focus on the technology needs of staff are a great way to pass along information. However, with constraints on time and funding for expert presenters they are not always a possibility. A technology mentor program has been implemented in one aspect or another at all schools surveyed. The ISD provides each employee with a list of staff members that are willing to assist one another; similarly, Owosso High School, Hononegah High School, and Brighton School District all have staff that are willing to assist each other in navigating different software programs whether it be one colleague assisting another or a designated building mentor.

The Gratiot-Isabella RESD (GIRESD), Brighton, Owosso and Hononegah school districts all have technology plans that outline the use of technology within their schools. These plans were developed to insure that the technology curriculums of each school within the districts meet current state and district wide educational standards. There is no formal required outline as to the form and content of the plans, so each technology plan varies in the information it contains. All of the school technology plans do contain outlines for evaluations. Periodic evaluations are necessary to ensure that the technology plans remain current and meet the educational needs of the students. The technology plans contain three areas of evaluation. These areas are instructor and staff development, student achievement and software reviews.
 * Evaluation**

The four districts all require staff and instructors to participate in continuing education and in-service training in the area of technology. The districts rely on the results of the evaluations of the in-service activities as well as feedback fom staff surveys when developing and updating their technology plans.

Student achievement in technology education within the four districts is measured by various forms of testing. The students are evaluated from one to four times a yaer. National and state standardized tests as well as evaluations included in the software are used. The results of these tests are taken into consideration when the districts are revising their technology plans and curriculums.

The technology plans of the four districts also contain information about student to computer ratios. The ratios in the districts range from 1 to 1 to 1 to 50. Computers are available to the students in the classrooms and computer labs. The ratio of student to computer is lower when the students are working in the computer labs rather than in the classrooms.

The school technology plans are revised every two to four years. Before new technology is added to a curriculum it is reviewed by the instructors and school administrators of each district. Software is added based on the information from the staff evaluations and surveys and student achievement test results as well as budget allowances.

The analysis based on the categories of hardware, software, level of training and trained personnel, and the evaluation process of technologies have demonstrated the similarities and differences across the school districts surveyed. Staying abreast on the evolution of technology is difficult. The constant changes give instructors an added challenge when using diverse technologies within the classroom. Utilizing other educators as resources is an informal but effective way to communicate about new and upcoming technology that can be used to enhance instruction. Technology cannot replace the expertise of educators within the classroom. However, we have demonstrated that with a solid infrastructure, the proper use of hardware and software, sufficient training as well as a thorough evaluation process system technology can be used to assist students in developing critical thinking skills and access information that may not otherwise be available. Likewise, educators can use similar technologies to track student achievement and develop interventions to facilitate student progress. Today’s school districts will continually evolve in their use of technology and today’s educators are consistently using this technology to the best of their abilities to work towards two common goals; effective instruction and consistent student growth.
 * Conclusion**