Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology Use Planning refers to an activity which provides direction to users in reaching a stated goal based on a technology-enabled learning environment (Larry, 1996). This often is stated in a form of a written document, also known as a technology planning document.

Our 21th century learners have quite different traits compared to that of their teachers. They are not only tend to be digitally literate, mobile, experiential and social (Rodgers, Runyon, Starrett, Holzen, 2006), but also view technology as part and parcel of their everyday life.

These learners also prefer to work collaboratively in a flexible learning environment. Traditional educators tend to focus on teaching facts and theories within the traditional learning space – classroom. However, there is a need to consider how we can effectively engage the learners through appropriate uses of technology within other forms of learning spaces, such as an virtual learning communities. Technology Use Planning can bring together a team of stakeholders (teachers, school management, technology experts etc), guide them in the process of identifying the needs of the learners and the institution, and define the goals and tasks that are required to accomplish them.

National Educational Technology Plan 2010

The National Educational Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) indicated recommendations in five key areas: a) learning , b)assessment, c)teaching, d)infrastructure, and e)productivity.
These recommendations provided a common foundation for all educational institutions within the country for the development of their Technology Use Planning. Schools are often limited in their area of research and development of technology use planning due to constraints of expertise, time and budget. The NETP provided in-depth insight perspectives from the expertise at the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S Department of Education, thus providing a guided direction for the strategies of technology in institutions across the states. However, each educational institution will still need to set aside the time, effort and resources to analyse the needs of the institution, teachers and students, and construct their Technology Use Plan.

a)Short or Long Term

See (1992) explained that effective technology plans are short term, not long term. He cited an example that five year plans are too long. However, technology plans often take into account a variety of factors, such as a)equipment and software purchasing, b)implementation of technology uses, c)development of teaching content for use in technology-enabled environment.

i)Equipment Purchases

Some school policies have detailed specifications about IT Equipment Disposal. For example, certain IT equipment that are purchased should be used for a period of a number of years (example, 5 years), before they can be disposed and replaced with newer equipment. Therefore, I felt that in the process of developing the technology plan for the use, members of the planning committee have to take into account existing school policies in pertaining to whether they are allowed to upgrade or purchase the equipment in a short term or long term.

ii)Software Purchases

It have been observed in the software market, newer versions of the softwares are being rolled out on a regular basis. Most desktop software have release of minor enhanced versions within 1 to 2 years. Typically, within a period of 3 years, major software enhancements are released (For example, Microsoft Office 2007 and Microsoft Office 2010 were released about 3 years apart). The use of web applications (or in the “cloud” applications) are also on the rise. Enhancements of web applications can be even released within a short period of time, sometimes just months apart. Therefore, it can be very difficult for technology planning committee to make decisions for the long term.

I believe that it is crucial to have a very clear defined goal of the institution for the long term of at least about five years. It can be very frustrating for school personnels and students if they have to adapt to new equipment and softwares every one or two years. The technology planning committee should be much guided to where they want the institution to move towards in the long run. However, due to the changing environment of technology development and inventions, the technology planning document should structure in some form of review to the technology plan every 1 to 2 years. A specially set-aside “budget” for supporting possible revisions should be buffered in the initial technology planning document.

Focus on Applications, Not Technology

I agree with See about the need to focus on applications. It is crucial to consider a variety of elements of integration technology into teaching and learning.

Developed by Matt Koehler and Punya Mishra, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) addresses the qualities of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching. All three primary forms of knowledge: Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK) are crucial for consideration of decisions made in the technology use planning.

Therefore, it is important that the technology use planning committee should be made up of members who are experts from the three primary forms of knowledge. This will appropriate decisions to be made based on views integrated from the three forms of knowledge.

Conclusion

With the guidance of the strategic directions from the National Educational Technology Plan 2010, educational institutions will need to bring together a committee with members with expert knowledge in all three forms of knowledge : Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK), and construct a unique Technology Use Planning document that meets the needs of institution. The Technology Use Plan should be developed with a long term (about 5 years) goal in mind, but must be structured for review every 1 to 2 years. This will ensure that the Technology Use Plan is still relevant for all key stake holders of the institutions in both short and long term.

References

Anderson, L. (1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan. Retrieved http://www.nctp.com/guidebook.cfm

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). New York: Routledge

Rodgers, M., Runyon, D., Starrett, D., Holzen, R. V. ( 2006). Teaching the 21^st century learner. 22^nd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.

See, John. (1992). Developing effective technology plans. Retrieved http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan, 2010: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-exec-summary.pdf

 

Digital Divide versus Digital Inequality

Traditionally, “Digital Divide” is viewed as a distinction between those who do and do not have access to internet while “Digital Inequality” identifies differences among persons who have formal access to the internet (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001).

It is necessary however to understand the context in which both terms bring meaning to educators in their attempts to harness on technology in teaching and learning.

In 1997, only 14% (IDA, 2004) of Singapore household has access to internet. In other parts of Asia like Taiwan and Japan, the figures are much lesser at 5% (IDA, 2004) and 6.5% (AMI,1998) respectively. Hence, in the context of only less than 15% of the nation’s household with access to internet, it was a priority to implement measures to reduce the “Digital Divide” in most Asian countries.

However, within a span of 12 years, internet household penetration rate has increased significantly, almost six-fold in Singapore to 81%. With more than three-quarters of the nation on internet access, the context is not longer just about who do and do not have access to internet, but it requires us to go further to discuss about “Digital Inequality” – whether there are differences among persons who have access to internet.

DiMaggio and Hargittai indentified 5 aspects of Digital Inequality:
1. Technical Means
2. Autonomy
3. Skill
4. Social support
5. Variation in Use

In this paper, I will address three of these inequalities, namely 1)Technical Means, 2)Automony and 3)Variation in Use, especially in the context of Singapore.

Inequality in Technical Means

Inequality in Broadband Access at Home

In a survey conducted by Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, it was observed that in 2009, while 83% of all households have at least one computer; only 81% of households have internet access at home. While majority of those with internet access have broadband access (80%), a small percentage has only narrowband access (1%).

Though considered a very small percentage, educators must ensure that we do not ignore the needs of students with narrowband access at home. Some learning resources that we have today (e.g. YouTube videos, Podcasts) are huge in file size and learners with narrowband access will require a much longer time to download the resource, as compared to their peers with broadband access.

Implications
Educators should consciously planned alternatives for students to access the learning resources, especially outside school-hours. Schools could make necessary arrangements with public libraries or other community partners (E.g. Student Care Centres, Non Profit Organisations) to provide broadband access to students outside of school-hours.
Learning resources could also be stored on portable media (such as DVD, CD-ROM) so that learners could loan them to use on any computer.

Inequality in Autonomy of Use

Inequality in Number of Computing Equipment Per Household
While 35% of Singapore’s households have only one computer; 48% of the households have two or more computers (IDA, 2010). It is not uncommon to have various members of the household requiring internet access at the same time.

Working parents may be required to use the computer to check their emails at night, while the children may require the computer to complete their assignments online. This also implies that 48% of the household with two or more computers will have an advantage over the 35% with only one computer. In households with only one computer, household members will have to negotiate their own time ‘slots’ in using the computer, thus reflecting a ‘limit’ on the duration of internet that each member has.

While most households relied on desktop computers, it was also noted that portable computing equipment are gaining popularity among individuals. Among the 7 to 14 years old, 53% have a portable laptop and 66% have mobile phones/smart phones. The figures were even higher among the 15 to 24 years old, with 78% having a portable laptop and 99% having a mobile phone/smart phone. About 28% of those with portable computing equipment access the internet wirelessly (IDA, 2010). Learners with these portable internet devices can access internet while they are travelling to schools, maximising travelling time for learning online.

Implications
In view of inequality in autonomy of use of computer and internet, school administrators and national policy makers could consider moving towards a one laptop per student approach, rather than one computer per household approach.

Some existing examples include the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) organisation whose mission is to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child (OLPC, 2010).

Another example is at the Maris Stella High School in Singapore, where all students from Secondary One (13 years old) to Secondary Four (16 years old) are required to purchase an Apple MacBook. The school also made necessary considerations for students from the low-income group and rendered financial assistance and provisions for them accordingly (Xavier, 2010).

Budget Limits Duration of Internet Access at Community / Commercial Facility

In terms of location of internet use, for 7 to 14 years old, 8% access it at community facility (e.g. public library) and 4% access it at commercial facility (e.g. cybercafés).

For the 15 to 24 years old, 10% access it at community facility (e.g. public library) and 11% access it at commercial facility (e.g. cybercafés) (IDA, 2010).

It is quite likely that students access internet at community or commercial facility because they do not have computer/internet at home and require access during off-school hours. In Singapore, both internet access at the community or commercial facility is chargeable at approximately SGD$1.80 per hour (Estimated US$1.42). One could also imagine a student rushing to complete his assignments online because he could only to pay for one hour of internet access after school-hours. This could put him at an unfair advantage compared to his peers who have unrestricted access to internet at home after school-hours.

Implications
In 2006, Singapore introduced the Wireless@SG initiative, which provides free wifi access speeds up to 1 Mbps at over 1000 Hotspots. Though a very beneficial initiative as a whole, challenges remain for students who live or study away from the Hotspots areas. Policy makers could consider how they could work with Internet Service Providers (ISP) to provide substantially-subsidised rates of home broadband services for low-income families.

With the merge of new technology devices like 3G Wireless Modems, school administrators could also consider the loan of 3G Wireless Modems and Laptops to students. This could aid in reducing unequal duration access to internet after school hours.

Inequality in the Variation of Use of Internet

Employed More Time on Social Networking than Learning Resources
It is also crucial to study the type of activities employed on the internet. Not everyone who access the internet use it for learning activities. Research evidence seemed to imply that most young people use the internet for a limited range of activities (Livingstone, Bober & Helsper, 2005).

Studies have also shown that internet activities ranked highest primarily in use of social networks (e.g. Facebook) – 31% ( 7 to 14 years old), 54% (15 to 24 years old) and much lower in Remote Acccess to Learning Resources from School Server – 22% (7 to 14 years old), and 16% (15 to 24 years old) (IDA, 2010).

Implications
In spite of the fact that most students have access to internet, educators have to acknowledge the fact that our students spend a dominant amount of their internet access time on Social Networking sites, rather than accessing Learning Resources from School Server. Though there are multiple reasons that account for this behaviour (E.g. Not all schools embark on eLearning, Learning Resources are not engaging enough), educators should consider on how to enable a greater engagement of learners through developing engaging online learning resources.

Conclusion

This paper has examined the extent of digital inequality in Singapore and explores possible measures which could be put in place to reduce the digital inequality.

Despite an overall high household internet penetration rates, there remains a clear divide in at least three identified areas 1) Technical Means, 2)Autonomy and 3)Variation in Use.

Therefore, I find that educators, administrators must work closely with policy makers to narrow his digital inequality gap. Future studies into how other countries beyond Singapore has reduced the digital inequality would provide helpful data for further research and development in Singapore.

References

Access Media International (AMI). (1998). Internet Users in Japan Total 10.1 Million in February 1998. Retrieved from http://www.ami.co.jp/home5/japanese/press/items/japan_980601.html

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality:’ Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~arts…gittai.pdf

InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA). (2010). Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals for 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/Publications/Publications_Level3/Survey2009/HH2009ES.pdf

InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA). (2004). Asia Pacific Information & Communication Technology Technical Meeting – Singapore Country Report. Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/stat/ict/ict2004/6.Country_report-Singapore.pdf

Livingstone, S. Bober, M., & Helsper, E. (2005). Inequalities and the Digital Divide in children and youth person’s internet use. London: LSE Report. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/398/1/UKCGOdigitaldivide.pdf

One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). (2010). Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml

Xavier. L. (2010). Singapore’s 21st century school of the future. Retrieved from http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/12/13/singapores-21st-century-school-of-the-future/

Elements of Educational Technology

According to Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), the definition of Education Technology is “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.”

The elements of the definition of Educational Technology includes (1) Study, (2) Ethical Practice, (3) Learning, (4) Improving, (5) Performance, (6) Creating, (7) Using, (8) Managing, (9) Appropriate, (10) Technological, (11) Processes, and (12) Resources.

In this post, I will be discussing my personal reflection and perspective of the element “Ethical Practice”.

Ethical Practice

In the discussion of the element of “Ethical Practice”, I would make reference to the AECT Code of Professional Ethics, which consists of three sections, (1) Commitment to the Individual, (2) Commitment to the Society, and (3) Commitment to the Profession.

In view of these three sections, AECT further states the various obligations in each respective section. The complete list of obligations statements can be retrieved from the AECT website. In this post, I will discuss four obligation statements under the three sections.

Commitment to Individual

In this century of rapid technological change, Instructional Designers and educators are constantly dealing with the challenge of integrating technology tools and resources into teaching and learning.  In our commitment to the individual, we are obligated to “guarantee to each individual the opportunity to participate in any appropriate program” (AECT, 2007). Digital equity has been an issue that grappled educators for a long period of time.  One of the recommendations is to ensure equitable student access to internet, within the school day, and even beyond the school day (Williamson & Redish, 2009).

According to the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) 2008 Survey on Infocomm Usage in households, amongst households with school-going children, 94% had access to a computer at home. 76% of the households have access to internet. This implies that 6% of school-going children do not have a computer at home, and probably a larger percentage do not have access to internet at home. If the school embarks on eLearning program for students and requires them to complete their assignments at home, how can we ensure all students have access to internet beyond the school day? Are students penalised by their teachers for not being able to complete their eLearning assignments on time because they do not have internet access at home?

Furthermore, we should also consider the needs of learners with disabilities (e.g. Hearing Impairment, Visual Impairment) to ensure that they have access to the relevant assistive technologies.  Do we design and develop technology-based instructional materials in such a way that facilitates learning for learners with disabilities? For example, a learner with hearing impairment will encounter great difficulty in learning if he is required to view an instructional video with no captioning provided.

The second obligations that I wish to address is that we should “protect the privacy and maintain the personal integrity of the individual” (AECT, 2007), including that of our learners.  Instructional Designers should work closely with relevant personnel in school to secure computers which store sensitive information (e.g. Student records, grades, addresses). Measures could include firewalls and restricted access to computer server rooms. With the current wave of using Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning, educators should also be aware of potential risks of student’s blogging and posting of personal information online. We should set up the necessary guidelines for teachers and students, as well as putting in place relevant school policies to guide our practise in the implementing of Web 2.0 tools.

Commitment to Society

In our commitment to the Society, we are obligated to “accept no gratuities, gifts, or favors that might impair or appear to impair professional judgement” (AECT, 2007). New and emerging technologies often do not come cheap. Competition among various technologies providers may cause them to use various approaches (both ethical and unethical) to secure deals with the schools.

With the recent interest in using tablets in schools, if I was given the responsibility to procure 300 units of Andriod Tablets (Estimated USD$630 each, total USD$139,000) for the school, I must remain objective in my professional judgement in the selection of vendor and should not give preference to any vendor who attempt to give any gifts or favors.

Commitment to the Profession

We must also continue to be obligated to give “accurate credit to those whose work and ideas are associated with publishing in any form” (AECT, 2007). Internet has provided us easy access to data and research information from other individuals and organisations around the world. We should ensure that Instructional Designers and teachers are competent in copyright literacy and comply with the relevant intellectual property rights.

For example, if I am developing a Learning Object for a group of learners, do I quickly assume that it is okay to scan a graphic from the learners’ textbook, or obtained from a publisher’s website and integrate it into the Learning Object for distribution on the school’s ELearning platform? Shouldn’t I have obtained the necessary permission from the publisher even before I scan or download the graphic?

Conclusion

Instructional Designers, teachers and other educational personnel who are involved in the design, development and implementation of educational technology should constantly be aware of our ethical obligations to the individual, society and profession.

Only with a strong base and foundation in ethical principles, will we be able to maintain the level of our professional conduct in facilitating learning and improving performances of our learners.

References

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. AECT Code of Professional  Ethics (2007). Retrieved fromhttp://www.aect.org/About/Ethics.asp

Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore. (2008). Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage  in Households and by Individuals for 2008 – Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20090218183328.aspx

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE’s Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards. What Every K-12 Leader Should Know and Be Able to Do. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.