By far this was a very revealing artifact. When I started teaching three years ago, I felt that the school was more than adequate when it came to technology being offered. Being that I was technologically inexperienced at the time, I felt that the staff and the students had a good working knowledge of the available system but as I started using the tools offered the only question I had was, how do I use this or what can I do with this even if I did know how to use it? As I began investigating the areas covered in the Maturity Model I started to get the sense that there was a definite knowledge gradient between what technology and tools that were available and that of those who were capable of using it.
The greatest surprise that I found, as I expanded into asking questions to the staff and the students, was how much in common their opinions were. The overall expression towards the school’s technologic capabilities was the appreciation of what they think the system can do but feel limited in personal use due to the lack of in-service or technology support that surrounded them. As I discovered going through all the categories, my school has gone through so many changes to keep up with the times. But the point here is, can a school, having good intentions to solve or update its technological woes, expect to improve staff usage or enhanced learning without giving serious thought to the bigger picture of integrating wide technology support in its long term planning?
Please have a look at my summary of PCC and the survey.
Frederick Reyes: EDTECH Learning Log 