Currently, our county is in the midst of transitioning to 1:1 devices.

Teachers in

grades 3-5 are much more open and willing to change the way they think about

technology and how to use it to individualize instruction and assessment because they

have 1:1 devices. I think the teachers who use outdated or slow laptops are less likely

to be willing to include technology and online resources in their teaching, let alone in

their planning. As we transition to Google chromebooks, it is ironic that more than 90%

of our staff dont know they have a Google account, how to access it, or how to save

and access Google drive. The innovation I want to implement is professional

development beginning with Google Apps & Google drive, giving teachers training on

using these systems and moving on to other resources, like websites, programs, and

apps, that help them individualize instruction and assessment for their students. Our

school struggles with professional development in the sense that it is not consistent,

doesnt apply to everyone, and it is often time irrelevant or not applicable. People,

including myself, often complain that there is no differentiation or that we seem to be

doing tasks just to say we did them, like read an article and respond and then never talk

about the article again. We are a SIOP school (sheltered instructional observation

protocol) with a SIOP team, yet 75% of our staff dont know what SIOP is. They had

one year of training for us on SIOP, so if you came to our school after that year, as

many of our part time specialists did, you still dont know what SIOP stands for or what

a language objective is. I think we can use technology to our advantage to bring these

teachers into the know on SIOP and show teachers how easy and effective it is for

student achievement. All we ever do is talk about how poorly our students do on tests
and assessments, yet we are still forcing the same instruction for all our students.

Clearly they have different learning styles and different needs. My hope is to show

teachers that through technology, we can meet those needs and boost our student

achievement while closing the gap.

According to Surry, this innovation meets the various attributes mentioned in his

paper. This innovation has trialability. In fact, I think our trial period is currently

underway. For example, some teachers are using Google Classroom while others have

no idea that they even have one and one that any student can access from any device

that has internet access. Every month, we get a UDL tip of the week posted to our

private folder on Outlook. Very few teachers know about those resources and even less

actually put them to use. There is certainly a better way to share this information with

staff. It has observability. I think that teachers will be able to see observable results in

the engagement of their students and would be able to observe the progress of students

over time. I think that when we model applicable uses of these technologies for

teachers, they will be able to replicate and implement them in their classes as well,

because they will see the value they bring. They will certainly see the relative

advantage (better than other innovations or the status quo). Many times it has been

expressed that our "professional development' is a waste of time and people are always

wondering where it comes from and who decides on it. All the time staff are requesting

resources and ideas for how to engage students, use the Chromebooks for 1:1 in upper

grades, incorporate technology in lower grades, and rarely ever have a chance to

collaborate around it and/or get access to the tools and websites. I think that they will
see the opportunity for how these resources will make them more effective teachers.

The complexity of the innovation offers a range depending on the teachers being

discussed. I think for teachers who have 1:1 devices this is not complex and will go

very well with what they already are trying to do. I think for lower grades, we will have

some push back in regards to getting students access to more devices which creates a

more complicated problem. We have lots of mobile labs so in theory, there should be

enough devices, but after a few years laptops get "old" and don't work as well anymore.

When you compare and use new Chromebooks, it is harder to go back to slow devices.

I think a huge misconception is that students can use Google drive, Google classroom

and other apps on PC laptops and that they dont need Chromebooks to accomplish the

same things. I know that our principal already values technology and implementing new

ways to teach and assess and thinks it is a compatible fit. She has a strong need and

desire to learn basic technologies, and so do some of our other staff. When they don't

know what they're missing, there is nothing to miss. I think that it will be difficult to get

all teachers on board, but I think that once we get going and they see how applicable

and helpful it is, they will want to continue with it and the innovation will gain

momentum.

I interviewed three teachers at my school about a new implementation of our

data collection. This year we decided to use a Google Sheet rather than submit the

scores to a third party to input them in our intranet, preventing us from accurate,

real-time data. A Google Sheet was created for teachers to input and track student test

scores, monthly data points, and other important fields so teachers had access to it at
all times, like during PLC, as well as access from home. Our goal was to teach

teachers how to use Google Sheets, access drive, save to drive, and use their Google

Account in an effective and applicable way that didnt sound like one more thing. I

learned a lot about where our staff is with this technology innovation in terms of Elys 8

conditions. Two out of the three teachers believed that the previous way we collected

data to monitor student progress was problematic. They said that they turned in data to

a third party and then never heard anything about that data again. If and when they

saw the fall and winter scores, it was too late, meaning no longer applicable because

too much time had passed for the data to actually inform instruction. They felt that

having access to the Google Sheet was very helpful and they were able to bring it up

during PLC meetings to discuss it when it was still relevant. One teacher said that her

team never talked about the spreadsheet so even if it was problematic before, this didn't

solve the problem. They did it once in the beginning of the year and then never talked

about it again. I think that teachers are dissatisfied with parts of our system but I dont

think that any of them feel strong enough dissatisfaction to want to do anything about it

to make it better. For example, the spreadsheet was a way to get them to use Google

beyond the data monitoring tool, however, no teacher who didnt use Google Apps

before started to because of this. Staff who used Google Apps before this, accessed

the spreadsheet and continued to use Google and other apps, while those who didnt

went back to doing things the same way.

All three teachers I interviewed agreed that they had the skills to navigate,

create, and input data into the Google sheet. One teacher did mention that even though
she had skills to use GAFE and other apps, many of her teammates did not. We

offered a training and a series of videos to show during meetings that introduced

teachers to using Google Sheets, how to create and input data, but we have no way of

knowing who watched it. It seems that people who possess the skills, had already

possessed them prior to our implementation. They also all agreed that resources were

available, especially since each teacher has access to his or her own Chromebook or

desktop for school use. They also commented that it was even more readily available

since you could access the spreadsheet from home. The interviewees agreed that they

had time in the beginning of the year to familiarize themselves with the Google Sheet

and that they were able to discuss it and "train" in their PLC. Being able to access the

sheet from home and simultaneously with others, made it easier to input the data

because they had more time to do that.

Although some conditions were clearly met, others were not. All interviewees

agreed they never felt any intrinsic reward or received any extrinsic rewards for

participating in using the Data Collection Tool on Google Sheets. Since no one felt

rewarded, no one had any incentive to continue to use Google Apps in other aspects of

their professional time, like planning or instruction. Two of the teachers said they never

felt that they had any say or opportunity to contribute to the decision making of the data

collection tool as to what went on it or having to do it that way at all. One teacher felt

they did have a say in it but mentioned that was because she was on the STEM

committee that created and implemented the Google spreadsheet. All interviewees did

not feel that there was commitment by those who were involved. They commented that
they haven't heard anything in a while about the data collection tool, Google drive or any

other technology, and felt that it was one of those things that started out strong but

quickly fell to the wayside. They also felt that leadership was not evident. They

mentioned that leadership was pushing other things on them and again, the data

collection tool is hardly ever mentioned. One teacher commented that she thought one

of her teammates probably didn't even know how to get to it anymore. It is obvious that

most of the conditions were not met and that is probably is the reason why no one uses

or talks about not only our Data Collection Tool anymore, but our push for using Google

Apps at all in general. It is evident to me that sometimes, when teachers have good

ideas about ways to implement and make communication, data collection, tracking, etc.

more efficient and effective for teachers, that without administration backing, support

and understanding, that those ideas quickly fade away.

The conditions that need the most work are incentives and rewards, time,

commitment by those involved, leadership, and participation to make sure that each

teacher buys into the innovation and implements throughout the entire school year. I

feel that I can offer rewards to staff at certain checkpoints throughout the year by giving

them Carole Cash to cash in for prizes. Carole Cash is a voucher from our principal

that staff can turn in for different rewards and it is part of our PBIS). I think we can

spotlight or showcase teachers who are doing great things for the staff, offering the

teachers who are doing it a chance for intrinsic reward. Time will be met by offering

professional development sessions during staff meetings. Participants will have the

opportunity to develop resources and implement those tools in their classrooms

immediately. Participation will be met by having those professional development

sessions be determined by the strongest needs of our staff told by survey. This also

meets the participation need for staff to be able to choose the direction the PD goes and

what comes out of the innovation. Two important conditions that I dont have control

over are administration support through evident leadership and commitment by the

coaches on the committee, school leaders and administration. One way I can hope to

express their buy in to the staff is by offering the professional development at our staff

meetings. By providing us that precious time all year, it will send a message to the staff

that what we are doing is important and they support it to give us that time.

At our school, our teachers fall on a wide range of the ACOT model. Like I said

before, teachers in grades 3-5 who already have Chromebooks and have had them for

2 or more years, are much more in the adaptation and appropriation stage. They are

able to use the 1:1 devices effectively in which students are more engaged and produce

more work. Some teachers are still in the adoption phase with chromebooks where it

simply replaces paper and pencil with a computer. Next year, when our second grade

teachers get their 1:1 devices they will be in entry stage dealing mainly with the

discipline, resource and classroom management of routines and effective use of the

technology. Very few teachers have entered appropriation where they are able to

understand technology and use it effortlessly as a tool to accomplish real work. I am

unaware of any that have developed new instructional practices or any that have

entered the invention stage where new learning environments are created and

fundamental change occurs. Even though we are all in different stages of the models
with technology implementation and how we use it to guide, instruct, and assess, we all

have room to grow. In the next year, I would hope to grow our staff to advance from

adoption to adaptation and help the second grade teachers get to adaptation and

appropriation faster than in previous years.

I spent some time focusing on how the fourth grade teachers have moved

through ACOT as they have had to adopt Chromebooks into their classrooms. The

beginning of the year was spent in Entry. The teachers were struggling to manage

resources, establish routines and procedures, and deal with first year teacher problems.

Very quickly (about a month or 2 in) the team moved to the adoption stage where they

began replacing paper and pencil worksheets for centers with interactive computer

games in math and reading. Students were more engaged in the center work, and

completing more assignments. Out of 5 teachers, 4 are in the adaptation stage. They

have found ways to implement Chromebooks so that students are more productive,

creating more work online than before using paper and pencil. It is my belief that a

large reason they are not moving out of adaptation into appropriation is because they

are not collaborating as well as they could be. I think that if they shared ideas and

started planning not just for lessons but for technology use, they would rapidly ascend

into the next stage of appropriation or even invention where they understand the

technology better. They could find it a useful tool that was a natural fit in all subjects

and assignments and as a way for individualizing instruction and assessments for

students, not just rewarding them with online math games. This would certainly enable

the creation of a new learning environment and instructional evolution.

 I plan to enlist the STEM-technology committee as the stakeholders to help

address what is missing in our school. The committee is made up of one or two

teachers from every grade level pre-k to 5th, an ESOL teacher, a Specialist, and a

Special Education teacher. Each grade level/team representative serves as a liaison to

relay important information, provide instruction and guidance, collect feedback and with

this new plan, and contribute to the content and training staff for the technology

innovation. In order to get them involved and keep them involved I want to make sure

that they have voices and opinions heard. For example, they will help develop the

questions for the survey that goes out to staff as well as participate in the survey

themselves. They are as responsible for developing the plan as I am. The hardest part

is the follow through and keeping them accountable. Sometimes we offer stipends for

these committee members for the work that they do at nighttime events and other

activities, which address rewards and incentives for leadership. Another way I will keep

them involved is delegating responsibilities throughout the year. This way, the work is

shared by all and there are consequences for not fulfilling your duties. The rest of the

staff will see that the committee and leaders are committed to the innovation. Most of

the current committee members are excited, knowledgeable and ready to share useful

resources and ideas with their teammates, which will play a large part in getting them

motivated and keeping them participating. My administration pops in at our meetings

and we meet to discuss ideas and plans for events. This is how I will address

Leadership as evident and keep my principal in the loop as much as possible so she

may show her support.

 My list of stakeholders varies greatly from the ideal listed in the guidebook. For

one we have no students or parents on our committees. Our committees are part of our

contracted time, and therefore technically we are paid to participate in them though they

fall outside our duty day. Our committee meets once a month before school which also

prohibits parents, students, and community members from attending. Before reading

this I never considered asking a business person from one of our business supporters

to participate on the committee. Our librarian used to be on our committee, however,

we have to have one person from every team represented on every committee and

since her and I are technically both specialists, she had to be on a different committee.

We are having a new media specialist join the staff next year, this might be a good

opportunity to bring her on board. Our technology personnel is an employee of the

county, not school based, and has 5 or 6 schools that he services. He does not come

to meetings but is available for questions and support. Our administrative support

personnel also are not required to participate in committees or staff meetings based on

their contract. It is unlikely they would be willing to volunteer an hour before school plus

the work on the innovation to help.

My technology vision matches every student with their own personal learning

device. Teachers would be more comfortable and capable using technology to enhance

student learning because teachers are able to use, get trained, and collaborate about

technology with other teachers. Students would be able to use their technology to

personalize their education by choosing apps and programs that complement their

learning styles. They would be able to choose how they wanted to be assessed and
show their teacher what they know. They would be able to collaborate with students in

the class, in the grade level, and outside the school, as would the teachers.

Communication within the school would be improved, and within the community outside

the school because information would be instantaneous and up to date. Everyone

would be "connected" so fewer things would "fall through the cracks." Our teachers

would be able to get our students ready for the 21st century careers by teaching them

the tech skills they themselves possess. Students would have a healthier balance

between online time and face-to-face contact with other students and their teachers.

Some important issues to be addressed is the implementation of Google. Our

first priority is to transfer our data to Google drive, and teach people how to access their

accounts. Since it is available to everyone from anywhere, it would allow for more

collaboration between teachers, specialists and teachers, interventions, ESOL, Special

Ed etc. Documents and spreadsheets that involve student data, or items that need to

be viewed by the whole school or multiple staff members at the same time, would all be

in Google docs or spreads. All teachers would have and use google classrooms to

facilitate collaboration in the same way using google apps for students and

individualizing instruction and assessment for their students. Students and teachers

would be proficient in using the google apps for teaching and learning. Students would

be more engaged in their learning, they would be able to make choices for ways to

show their learning and ways to collaborate with their peers. Teachers would have

more time available to focus on instruction and individualizing learning for their students.

Students would have more ownership of their learning. From Google apps, our staff
would venture into other websites and online programs that give instruction, guided

practice, collaboration, PBL, presentations, and assessments through technology and

devices.

One technology plan that I liked was from Deckerville Community School in

Michigan. I found their language for objectives in the mission statement, was one that I

want my students and staff to achieve as well. They said their technology plan was to

help students, staff, and community members function in our technological society and

to provide students with marketable skills through the use of technology. Both are key

in the implementation of my plan and are assumed outcomes. I found this finished plan

to align with my ideas for individualizing education for our students because they

emphasize the value of individuality in their plan. They talk about using technology to

emphasize equal opportunity for students to excel in various areas, and use their

strengths to achieve success at school. This relates to the idea that I am trying to

convey, we can use technology effectively to teach students the way they need to be

taught. Equal opportunity doesnt mean giving students the same opportunity. I also

really liked that they planned to develop a technology curriculum and keyboarding

curriculum for K-12, something that should be in every school but is not. I wonder if

there would be a way that I could incorporate this into my schools technology plan.

They also include a section for training the community, which would be really beneficial

at my school I also like how one of the steps was creating and sharing an online

manual of the available technology for teachers to access and use. This is something

that I want to incorporate into my plan as I have already started an ongoing list of
educational technology resources this program has introduced me to. A less positive

from this plan was the composition of the committee members. It was surprising to see

only three teachers on it. The rest were leaders, non-classroom faculty, and one parent

representative. It just reminds me how new things are always being pushed down into

our schools from above without any input or say from the teachers who are actually in

the schools. Policy makers dont seem to value what teachers bring to the table it

seems. I give them the benefit of the doubt in this case as it seems to be a smaller size

committee.

Another great example that aligns with what I am trying to accomplish is from the

School Town of Speedway in Indiana. Their plan sets out to implement technology that

...enhances the teachers ability to meet the needs of all students in the classroom,

enhances curriculum in a way that allows students to be more successful at accessing

and using information, motivates students to be more actively involved in the learning

process, provides specific solutions for specific needs and provides opportunities for

staff to research and develop new applications of technology. These are the key goals

that I hope to convey during my internship. I want students to be able to choose the

learning style that best suits their needs whether that involves technology or not, to be

engaged in the learning process, collaborate and problem solve using online resources,

and understand what it means to be a responsible digital citizen that possess basic

technology skills. My hope too, is that our teachers will be able to move into

appropriation and being to design new learning environments using technology. Their

plan has very detailed professional development that outlines how they will train their
staff to use the technology as well as implement it into their classrooms. Another idea

that they had in implementing their professional development plan was peer coaching

activities which we could easily replicate with our grade level STEM-technology

committee members. In the Wheeler Elementary School technology plan, they offered

a menu for teachers to choose the coaching model they learned best through. This is

another positive attribute that I hope to emulate in my plan. It will be more successful if

participants, teachers and staff, feel they have a choice in sessions and learning styles.

One possible downside to the high school wireless and remote response system, is that

if students do not have internet access at home, they cannot complete the assignment.

The technology plan discussed the software and hardware installation at the school,

however, it references one objective to report from home or any computer with internet

access. I know at my school this would be a problem as many of the students dont

have wireless internet or computers. Another point of confusion is one of the goals for

an elementary school in the district. It simply states, teachers will utilize software to

individualize instruction. Although this is a great idea I am left wondering what

software? What subjects or content area? How will this be done? The strategies and

plan continue to discuss test results and periodic discussions with the technology

liaison. It is much too vague for this goal to be achieved in my opinion. This makes

me reflect on my plan and that I continue to say individualize instruction, but I too have

not answered many of those questions.

 Action Plan

Action Person/Grou Date to Assessmen

p be t
Responsible Complete
d By

Meet with principal and share ideas Technology June 17, Letter of
and goals of proposed PD plan on Coach, 2016 intent for the
technology. Principal, principal to
Assistant sign
Principal, Staff
development
teacher

Full faculty google survey asking Technology Prior to Google

what technology PD, preferences, Coach end of Forms to be
and current skill set. 2015/201 submitted via
6 school MCPS
year account

Analyze survey results from staff Technology Summer PD plan for

and identify professional Coach, 2016 school year
development big idea topics for committee
sessions during FY17 school year members

Present PD map to SIT team for Technology Summer Evaluation

leadership buy in and approval of Coach, 2016 form & vote
stakeholders. leadership yes or no.
team,
administration,
staff
development
teacher

Create & share google classroom Technology Prior to All committee

as a STEM committee outlet to Coach, STEM first day of reps will
teachers. We will share resources, committee school Aug receive an
answer questions, provide support members 2016 email with
etc. login and
access to
google
classroom.

Pre-service PD: Whats GAFE? How Technology Septembe Meeting

do we use it? How do our students Coach r 2016 agenda, exit
use it? How can we individualize committee Staff slip /
instruction using it? Focus on Docs, members meeting evaluation
spreads, and using google drive

October PD: Google Classroom, set Technology October Meeting

up, create assignment, posts, etc. Coach, 2016 Staff agenda,
committee Meeting Google
members classrooms

November PD: Collaboration using Technology November Teachers will

technology. Staff will collaborate Coach, Staff use online
using docs, spreads and/or slides committee Meeting resources or
members 2016 GAFE to
collaborate/
create an
assignment
for students.

December PD: online assessments. Technology December Meeting

How to individualize assessment? Coach, 2016 Staff agendas
How to create assessments online, committee meeting evaluation
the benefits? How to use hybrid members (+/delta)
assessment (plickers) using online
assessment

January PD: Engagement, how Technology January Meeting

using technology can apply to all Coach, 2017 Staff agenda, Exit
learning styles & types. Resources committee Meeting card via
to grab students attention. members google
classroom.

February PD: How use technology to Technology February Meeting

differentiate instruction - resources, Coach, 2017 Staff Agenda,
routines, applications. committee Meeting Resource
members takeaways
from
teachers,
share out

March PD: Check in - How is it Technology March Meeting

going? What are some things that Coach, 2017 Staff agenda,
have improved? What are some committee meeting Check in
things youre not comfortable with members form

Review March Check-in forms & Technology March Agenda,

adjust remaining PD schedule Coach, 2017 updated PD
committee committee for remaining
members meeting months

April PD: Using technology to Technology April 2017 Meeting

incorporate data collection and Coach, Staff agenda, exit
formatives to drive instruction committee Meeting note: 3,21
members

May PD: Showcase. Where do we Technology May 2017 Online

go from here? Year Evaluation Coach, Staff survey,
committee Meeting online
members evaluation

May Review yearlong online Technology May 2017 Evaluation

evaluation Coach, committee results,
Committee meeting graphs,
members analysis.