1) The purpose of
the NETP is to reform education through the use of technology in order to ensure
that classroom education remains relevant in the 21st century, and
also that the US “remains competitive in the global economy.” This affects
teachers because they will need to develop non-traditional lesson plans and
find creative ways to incorporate technology into lessons and assignments. This
may be difficult for teachers who are not ‘digital natives’ or who have been
teaching ‘traditionally’ for many years. This affects students because what was
initially viewed as a ‘distraction’ or prohibited in classrooms will be the basis
for educational instruction.
2) The main
assumptions under which the NETP was developed are:
•Many of the failings of our education system stem from our
failure to engage the hearts and minds of students.
•What students need to learn and what we know about how they
learn have changed, and therefore the learning experiences we provide should
change.
•How we assess learning focuses too much on what has been
learned after the fact and not enough on improving learning in the moment.
•We miss a huge opportunity to improve our entire education
system when we gather student-learning data and fail to integrate the
information and make it broadly available to decision-makers at all levels of
our education system—individual educators, schools, districts, states, and the
federal government.
•Learning depends on effective teaching, and we need to
focus on extended teams of connected educators with different roles who
collaborate within schools and across time and distance and who use technology
resources and tools to augment human talent.
•Effective teaching is an outcome of preparing and
continually training teachers and leaders to guide the type of learning we want
in our schools.
•Making engaging learning experiences and resources
available to all learners anytime and anywhere requires state-of-the-art
infrastructure, which includes technology, people, and processes that ensure
continuous access.
•Education can learn much from such industries as business
and entertainment about leveraging technology to continuously improve learning
outcomes while increasing the productivity of our education system at all
levels.
•Just as in health, energy, and defense, the federal
government has an important role to play in funding and coordinating some of
the research & development challenges associated with leveraging technology
to ensure the maximum opportunity to learn.
A concern that administrators might have with these
assumptions is that it would take an enormous amount of time and financial
resources to implement technology-based infrastructures in classrooms
nationwide. Teachers may be concerned about their need to be adequately trained
in technology in order to provide quality instruction. They might also be
concerned about the advanced planning and preparation required to implement technology
into the lesson. Students might be challenged to maintain focus on
instructional content and may have concerns about falling behind peers who are
more computer literature or have access to technology at home.
3) The five
essential areas presented by the NETP as a model of learning include learning,
assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The 21st
century competencies are critical thinking, complex problem solving,
collaboration, and multimedia communication. Technology will support the growth
of these competencies by creating learning opportunities, through the use of the
internet and other web tools, which allow students to prepare for real life
situations.
4) The State of
Ohio’s Educational Technology Plan aligns with the NETP in that they both
propose that technology be incorporated to enhance and reform education, and
also that the plan be flexible and adaptable. The two plans are not aligned in
respect to whose ideas and input should be incorporated to establish the plan.
This is because the State of Ohio’s Educational Technology Plan seeks input
from “stakeholders in education” (such as the community, organizations, and
students) to design and implement the plan, whereas the NETP seeks to set a nationwide
standard and filter it to states and local communities. The likely intention of
the NETP’s approach is to ensure uniformity with regards to implementation of
the plan.
5) The Ohio’s
State Educational Technology Plan aligns with the NETP’s goals and recommendations
in the areas of learning, teaching, and productivity because it proposes to
provide virtual learning content, deliver quality professional development for
teachers, and develop advanced service systems. The two plans are not necessarily
aligned in the areas assessment and infrastructure because the Ohio’s State
Educational Technology Plan does not specifically propose a method of
assessment, nor does it specify goals for infrastructure.
6) As I read Ohio’s
State Educational Technology Plan I recognize that there might be barriers to
fulfilling this plan. Reasons that it may not be possible to reach these “measurements
of success” in the state of Ohio include: students not having access or the
skills required to partake in online courses, a number of schools simply not
reporting or submitting information appropriately, lack of resources (funding and/or
time) for adequate teacher preparation programs, and limited funding or access
to actual technological resources.
