1. Describe the purposes for and various stages of
formative evaluation of technology plan.
Through evaluation
of the technology plan, administrators and technology staff examine the plan’s
goals, assess the progress meeting those goals, and review strategies for
meeting those goals. They may develop new strategies to address goals not being
met. Evaluation should be an ongoing process, and consist of monitoring the
plan’s implementation as well as obtaining feedback from teachers and students.
(Hall, 2012)
Additional purposes of an
evaluation can include:
Justification – An evaluation may be done
to show reasons for continued existence and continued funding
Mandated evaluation – The evaluation may
be required by statue or other regulation
Program improvement – The evaluation can
be done to improve content and quality of program
Program planning – In addition to program
improvement, new programs or activities may be suggested through evaluation
(Pearson, 1992)
The steps for a formative review include:
1.
- Read and review the plan, noting goals and objectives,
and what will be done to achieve those goals. Note if there is a timeline
2.
- Look for a needs assessment for district’s overall
technology needs and identification of campuses that have greater needs. Does
the plan steer resources to those in greatest need?
3.
- Develop ways to measure implementation and goals of plan.
Examples: equipment inventories or surveys
4.
- Collect data at regular intervals and report findings
(Hall, 2012)
2. Describe your instruments used in a formative evaluation.
There are many possible
instruments available for formative evaluation. Among them are surveys or
questionnaires, observation, interviews, and self-evaluation by technology
staff (Pearson, 1992). Additionally, checklists or rubrics can used to examine
the plan, confirming that elements are included and to what extent (Franklin
Northwest Supervisory Union, 2009).
3. Collect data according to a formative evaluation plan for a given set of technology plan or instructor presentation.
The formative evaluation self-evaluation, rubric, and review
will be based on the steps listed in Question 1 and other source materials. I
will create a rubric to evaluate and assess the feasibility of each goal,
objective, and strategy, and how these will align with and address the needs of
the school. For each strategy, the evaluation will include a review against a
timeline for implementation.
Resources
Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union. (2009). FNWSU Technology Plan Formative Evaluation Template - End of Year 1. Retrieved
April 7, 2012, from http://www.fnwsu.org/fnwtech0912eval.pdf
Hall, S. (2012). How to Evaluate a School District Technology Plan. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://www.ehow.com/how_5880803_evaluate-school-district-technology-plan.html
Pearson, T. (1992). Evaluation Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://jeritt.msu.edu/documents/08Pearson.pdf
Did you find that there were few resources for helping schools to evaluate educational technology plans? Most grants require evaluation, yet the complexity of actually determining the impact of technology on teaching seems to make it very difficult. As a participant in a T3 grant, I participated in an evaluation conducted by Dr. Luanna Zellner. She read blog posts by teachers, conducted interviews, and observed lessons in progress. When complete, I felt that her evaluation of the program was very accurate. What do you think about the accuracy of the Staar chart method of evaluating a technology plan?
ReplyDeleteSusan, While I am impressed with the references you found on this topic, I think the Hall reference muddies the water. It does not distinguish between formative and summative evaluations or between those and the assessment instruments designed for the measurable objectives. Each of these types of evaluations has a different purpose- Hall seems to jumble them all together. I see the formative as more focused on gaining agreement that the plan is feasible from a technical, management, and funding perspective; the objective measures as on-going feedback to management about the quality of the objective processes; and the summative as a follow-up gauge of how well the plan met its goals and objectives.
ReplyDeleteAllison,
ReplyDeleteI've written several grants that have been funded, and I agree that finding resources for a grant based on this technology plan would be difficult. I think this is an area ripe for research.
I am not sure how the STAAR chart fits into evaluating a technology plan (this was the reading assigned for this week). Do you mean the STAR chart? My understanding is that the STAAR is the student assessment test, the STAR is School Technology and Readiness. The previous technology plan that I wrote from my school was based on the STAR chart. I used four areas similar to STAR areas: teaching and learning, professional development, administration and outreach, and infrastructure, and my goals were, for the most part, from the Developing Tech and Advanced Tech levels. But now I see the STAR chart more as a tool for needs assessment rather than a plan or a method of evaluating a plan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments on the Hall reference. Finding references for this week that specifically addressed formative evaluations of technology plans was difficult. Hall was one of the few I found that addressed evaluating technology plans, and chose to include it because it afforded one possible approach to evaluation. The Franklin Northwest reference is not ideal for our purposes, either; it is a formative evaluation to be administered one year into implementation.
As I wrote above, the lack of research in this area seems to be an invitation to further investigation.