Private School- Mike Morrow

Week 11:

1.            Describe the purposes for and various stages of formative evaluation of technology plan.

According to Dick and Carey, instructional designers use a formative evaluation "to obtain data for revising their instruction to make it more efficient and effective" while a summative evaluation is used once development of instruction is complete to "collect data to determine its effectiveness” (2009). 

A formative evaluation of a technology plan has a similar purpose.  It is a review with the stakeholders to determine the feasibility of the proposed plan, and to identify gaps in the assessment, goals, objectives, and strategies.  It should identify the revisions that need to be made in order to obtain buy-in from those who will be requested to support the plan and to implement the plan (the sponsors and stakeholders).  

In an earlier post I saw someone use a quote similar to the following:

Formative focuses on what should be learned; summative focuses on what has been learned.  I think that is a clear summation of the differences.  For a technology plan, it would say:  the formative focuses on determining what should be done; and the summative looks at what has been done. 

Another outstanding quote I found is attributed to Robert Stakes:  "When the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative; when the guests taste the soup, that’s summative." (n.d.). 

In my prior life as a corporate technology facilitator, technology projects or plans followed prescribed methodologies for development and implementation.  These methodologies had successive stages similar to the Dick & Carey model, but there were review points at the end of each step with management and the stakeholders to gain their agreement and approval before proceeding to the next phase.  Each of these review steps is a formative evaluation.  In terms of this technology plan, I would stage the evaluations (reviews) to occur after the drafting of the Needs Assessment and Goal statements; and again after the Strategies, Objectives, and Steps have been drafted.  Upon completion of the formative evaluations, the sponsors and stakeholders should have a clear idea of what the plan is intended to accomplish, how it will be accomplished , and who is responsible for accomplishing it.

2.        Describe your instruments used in a formative evaluation.

The technology plan itself is the basis for the formative evaluation.  The instruments used for the evaluation are the documents or presentations that need to be put together to present the plan to the various stakeholders.  The sponsors of the plan (those who will authorize the expense of implementation, e.g., the district superintendent or the board of trustees) need an Executive Summary that briefly describes:

·         The process (methodology) that was followed in developing the plan;

·         Who all was involved or consulted during the processs;

·         The major findings or conclusions of the Needs Assessment;

·         The Recommended actions to be taken; and

·         The cost and time required to implement the plan.

The stakeholders in the plan (those who will participate in the implementation or be effected by it) will need a presentation that focuses more on the details of the implementation.  Different versions of this level of presentation/review may need to be created to target specific groups of stakeholders to address their concerns or needs.  For example, for a school technology plan separate presentations may be made to the administrators and certain staff, to the faculty, and to the technology staff).  Since the objective is to obtain buy-in from each of these groups, the presentations need to be targeted to the needs and concerns of each of these audiences.

For my particular plan for The John Cooper School, I re-wrote and re-organized my Report II document to present:

·         the Needs Assessment based upon NAIS Principles of Good Practice and the ISTE NETS for Teachers;

·         the Goal Statements ;

·         Strategies (labeled as Recommendations);

·         Measurable Objectives (and steps) with an indication of whether it was related to Management, Technology, or Funding; and

·         Plan Assessment Instruments

This form of the document was e-mailed to my Internship sponsor at the school, the Technology Director, for his review and comments.

3.            Collect data according to a formative evaluation plan for a given set of technology plan or instructor presentation.

As stated above, my plan was submitted to the Technology Director for his review and comments.  Due to scheduling conflicts we have not completed our discussion of the document.  That should occur on Tuesday the 10^th. 

So far he has had two reactions to the plan:

·         He took issue with my assessment of his technology department as only Exceeding the NAIS PGP for Infrastructure practices in 2 out of the 4 categories.  He feels it should be 4 out of 4.  I rated the department as 2 Exceeds, and 2 Meets the standards.  I feel that I can make this change if it aids with his buy-in as the change does not impact the major findings or recommendations of the plan.

·         He instructed me not to share my report with anyone else at the school.  My report is for his eyes only.

This last point requires some explanation.  I am not an employee of the school.  I am not even a paid consultant for the school.  I am a volunteer, and the Technology Director is doing me a favor by allowing me access to the school and his department as a part of my Masters program.  Therefore, I have to be careful not to create any disruptions within the school with my plan, since I have no stake in the outcome of the plan.  I don’t want to create problems for my sponsor. 

Therefore, the Technology Director will take the portions of my plan that he thinks he can successfully use, and will carry them forward.  If I were to discuss portions of my plan with faculty or the administrators, it could undermine the efforts of my sponsor.   

Also, I am not the only one on this campus who is working on the technology plan.  While I have been developing the strategies, objectives, and steps, the administrators and the Technology Director have been formulating their own plans to address similar wants and needs.  Their implementation actions are outpacing my report.  So in that regard, my report would be seen by the administrators as redundant.  My ability to influence their process is limited to the input I am providing to the Technology Director. 

In the end, I know that my plan will not be adopted by the school.  However, I hope that the Technology Director, may find a few of my ideas appealing, and that he will incorporate a version of them into the actual plans of the school. 

Reference:

Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (seventh edition).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. 

Stakes, R. (n.d.).  Quoted on Northern Arizona University faculty webpage: “Formative v.s. Summative Evaluation”.  Retrieved April 7, 2012 from: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._formative.htm