Syllabus The Role of the Technology Specialist ET 680 Education Specialties Department School of Education Loyola University Maryland 2034 Greenspring Drive, GCTC 26 Timonium, MD 21093 Syllabus: ET 680 The Role of the Technology Leader Credit Hours: 3 Term: Fall 2012 Location: Center for Applied Technology North - Anne Arundel County Time Tuesdays 4:30pm - 7:00pm and online via Moodle Professor: David M. Marcovitz, Ph.D. Office: Graduate Center Timonium Campus, 26N Phone: 410-617-2250 Office Hours: 4:00-4:30 Tuesdays (before class) and by appointment Email: marco@loyola.edu

Education Department Learning Outcomes I. Competence X    I.A. Possesses Broad Knowledge X    I.B. Creates Productive Learning Environments X    I.C. Reflects on Practice X    I.D. Displays Leadership  X    I.E. Forms Community Relationships X II. Conscience X    II.A. Behaves Ethically X    II.B. Is Committed to Social Justice   III. Compassion X    III.A.Exemplifies Cura personalis X

HYBRID COURSE NOTE

This course will be meeting as a hybrid course, meeting sometimes in person and sometimes online via Moodle. Some of the online components are still under development and will progress throughout the semester. Online work will be a significant component of the course and is required. Every attempt will be made to inform you of online assignments in a timely manner. Check email and Moodle regularly for updates, instructions, and in-person and online schedules.

CATALOG DESCRIPTION

Analyzes the role of the technology leader in the school, including practical issues for managing the school's technology infrastucture, balancing a teaching load with technology leadership responsibilities, and the technology leader as a catalyst for change. Requires reading and presentation of scholarly articles, hands-on work with computers, and preparation of practical strategies and plans for technology implementation in the schools.

COURSE RATIONALE

Increasingly, schools are hiring technology leaders to oversee the smooth implementation of technology throughout the curriculum. Sometimes these positions are full-time positions, but more often than not, they are in addition to regular teaching and administrative responsibilities. Often, these positions are given to regular teachers who have shown the most interest in technology. You might find yourself as the de facto technology specialist without title or recognition. The technology specialist has to juggle being an administrator, a teacher, and a technology guru. This course will explore these roles and help you to better perform your role as a technology leader.

Candidates will understand that the role of the leader is to move beyond short-term thinking and help their schools move forward with technology. This involves understanding how institutions and individuals change and can be prompted to change as well as understanding how planning can help them get beyond “putting out fires” to thinking strategically. As part of the course, we will explore real case-studies, many from part-time technology leaders struggling to implement real changes in their schools.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

1. Candidates will learn about models of change and how they apply to moving a school forward with technology.
2. Candidates will understand the role of a technology committee in a K-12 school.
3. Candidates will learn about the grant process and how they can seek funding for technology projects in their classrooms.
4. Candidates will be introduced to a variety of policy issues that face the technology leader.

COURSE MATERIALS

Primary Text (Required):

Levinson, Matt (2010). From fear to Facebook: One school's journey. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Secondary Texts (Required):

Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan, version 2.0. (1996). Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://www2.msstate.edu/~lsa1/nctp/guide.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology (National Educational Technology Plan 2010). Retrieved February 8, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

Maryland State Department of Education (2007). Maryland educational technology plan for the new millennium: 2007-2012. Retrieved, February 8, 2011, from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/9242FEDD-09F7-4BB0-8F1F-AE6FAE562EA8/13358/TechPlan.pdf

Moursund, D. (2002). Obtaining resources for technology in education: A how-to guide for writing proposals, forming partnerships, and raising funds. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Books/GrantWriting/

Materials Needed:

Primary Text

Access to Secondary Texts (in print or online)

Software (provided in class and Loyola University labs):

• Internet Explorer or other browser
  
• Live.edu email (or other email system)
• Moodle
  

COURSE OUTLINE AND SCHEDULE OF CLASSES

The professor reserves the right to make changes to this schedule. Changes to the schedule and changes in assignments will be announced in class and/or online.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

You are expected to:

1. Attend all classes.

2. Complete all reading assignments as assigned in class.

3. Participate in all online activities in a timely manner.

3. Participate in class discussions.

4. Collect and share "Information to Share"

5. Hand in projects by the project deadlines.

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND GRADING CRITERIA

Projects and written materials should reflect the student's knowledge of the subject as well as the use of higher-order thinking skills (analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and evaluation). Materials should be presented in a professional manner, including correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and usage.

For this class, there are three papers, numerous online activities, and class participation that will count the following percentages:

Each will be awarded a letter grade from A to F (including all + and - grades in between and with A+ being awarded in very rare cases), except that some assignments might be awarded a numerical grade on a 100-point scale.

Projects and class participation will be assigned a grade between A+ and F. Online Activities and "Information to Share" will be part of the "Online Activities and Class Participation grade. Note that class participation is a significant portion of the grade because this is an issue and discussion oriented class in which all participants are expected to examine their own roles in the schools and discuss their roles based on issues presented in class.

For the purposes of averaging, the following numeric equivalents will be used: A+ = 100; A = 95; A- = 92; B+ = 88; B = 85; B- = 82; C+ = 78; C = 75; C- = 72; D+ = 68; D = 65; D- = 62; and F = 0. When the grades are averaged, the following scale will be used to assign the final grade (note that A+, C-, D+, D, and D- are not options for final grades): above 92 = A; 90 - 92 = A-; 87.5 - 90 = B+; 82 - 87.5 = B; 80 - 82.5 = B-; 76.5 - 80 = C+; 70 - 76.5 = C; below 70 = F. For further explanation of this system, click here.

ATTENDANCE POLICY

Due to the fact that this an interactive, discussion-oriented course, students are required to attend all class sessions and fully participate in online activities.

PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Unless otherwise stated, all work handed in for assignments is expected to be the original work of the candidate. Work that is not your own should be properly and clearly credited to the original author. Any plagiarized work will lead to a grade of F for the course.

Note that your instructor has access to many of the same resources that you do and can easily check for plagiarism in a number of ways (see for example http://www.plagiarism.org/).

LEARNING DISABILITIES

If you have a disability that is documented with the Disability Support Services Office (DSS) and wish to discuss academic accommodations, please contact your instructor as soon as possible. If you have a learning disability that has not been documented, you may contact the Disability Support Services Office (410-617-2602) for assistance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dirksen, D.J., & Tharp, D. (1997). "Utilizing the concerns-based adoption model to facilitate systemic change." Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville, VA: Asscociation for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1064-1067.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1990). "Teacher Beliefs and Practices Part I: Patterns of Change." ACOT Report #8. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.borderlink.org/BLresources/content/acot/rpt08.pdf

Ely, D.P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education; Winter90, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p298, from http://ezp.lndlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9609304233&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ensminger, D.C. & Surry, D.W. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate innovation implementation in the USA. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24(5), 611-626. Retrieved January 13, 2012: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/ensminger.html

Frazier, Max and Bailey, Gerald D. (2004). The technology coordinator's handbook. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Fullan, M. (with Stiegelbauer, S.). (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gibson, I.W. (2001) "Technology standards and reform in educational practice: The role of information technology in the transformation of a leader preparation program." In T.J. Kowalski & G. Perreault (Eds.), 21st Century challenges for school administrators (pp. 203 - 220). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Guidebook for developing an effective insructional technology plan, version 2.0. (1996). Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University. [Online] Available: http://www2.msstate.edu/~lsa1/nctp/guide.html

Hall, G. and Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.

Hawkins, J. (1993). Technology and the organization of schooling. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 30-35.

Levinson, Matt (2010). From fear to Facebook: One school's journey. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Marcovitz, D. (1998). "Supporting technology in schools: The roles of computer coordinators." Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville, VA: Asscociation for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1041-1045.

Marcovitz, D. (2000). "The roles of computer coordinators in supporting technology in schools." Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 259-273.

Marcovitz, D. M. (2006). Changing schools with technology: What every school should know about innovation. In R. C. Hunter (Series Ed.) & S. Y. Tettegah (Vol. Ed.), Advances in educational administration: Vol. 8. Technology and education: Issues in administration, policy, and applications in K12 schools (pp. 3-15). London: Elsevier.

Marcovitz, D. M. (2006). Copyright, technology, and your rights. In R. C. Hunter (Series Ed.) & S. Y. Tettegah (Vol. Ed.), Advances in educational administration: Vol. 8. Technology and education: Issues in administration, policy, and applications in K12 schools (pp. 73-84). London: Elsevier.

Maryland State Department of Education (2007). Maryland educational technology plan for the new millenium: 2007-2012. Retrieved, February 8, 2011, from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/9242FEDD-09F7-4BB0-8F1F-AE6FAE562EA8/13358/TechPlan.pdf

Moursund, D. (1985). The computer coordinator. Eugene, OR: International Council for Computers in Education.

Moursund, D. (2002). Obtaining resources for technology in education: A how-to guide for writing proposals, forming partnerships, and raising funds. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Books/GrantWriting/

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1998, December). "The Internet, Students' Rights, and Today's Principal." A legal memorandum, 1-6.

National School Boards Association. (1997). Investing in school technology: Strategies to meet the funding challenge. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/techinvest/

Painter, J. (2002, January). "Purchasing pitfalls" [Electronic version]. Electronic School, 8(1). Retrieved June 19, 2002, from http://www.electronic-school.com/2002/01/0102f5.html

Picciano, Anthony G. (2002). Educational leadership and planning for technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Schafffhauser, Dian (2011, January 6). A better approach to AUPs for mobile devices: 5 questions with Anthony Luscre. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved, February 8, 2011, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2011/01/06/A-Better-Approach-to-AUPs-for-Mobile-Devices-5-Questions-with-Anthony-Luscre.aspx?p=1

Strudler, N. (1991). The role of school-based computer coordinators as change agents in elementary school programs. In R. L. Blomeyer, Jr. & D. C. Martin (Eds.), Case studies in computer aided learning (pp. 222-271). New York: Falmer Press.

Strudler, N., Falba, C., and Hearrington, D. (2001, June). The evolving role of school-based technology coordinators in elementary programs. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED462950

Surry, D.W. (1997). Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico February 12 - 15, 1997. Retrieved, July 7, 2011, from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/

Tomei, L.A. (2002). The technology facade: Overcoming barriers to effective instructional technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology (National Educational Technology Plan 2010). Retrieved February 8, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

This page was prepared by Dr. David M. Marcovitz.

Last Updated: August 17, 2012