BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.S. Program
EDL 8530 Strategic Planning for Educational Technology
Programs
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department: Educational Leadership
Department phone number:
Semester: XXXX
Credit Hours: 3
INSTRUCTOR:
e-mail:
Web page:
Office Phone:
TEXTS:
Alexander, W. F. and Serfass, R. W. (1999). Futuring tools for strategic quality planning in
education. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press. ISBN: 0-87389-442-1
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership or approval of the
Educational Leadership Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
This course reviews comprehensive strategic planning processes appropriate for developing and
implementing instructional and administrative technology programs in K-12 settings. Content
also includes project management strategies; needs assessments; community-based
communications/marketing; managing large-group planning processes; business/community
partnerships; and procedure/policy development.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
When planning for educational technology programs, instructional leaders face many challenges.
These challenges include: (1) accounting for the rapid rate of change in the field of instructional
technology; (2) gaining support for educational technology initiatives from the general public; (3)
determining the often “hidden” costs related to purchases, such as technical support, maintenance,
and repair; and (4) financing purchases and program costs through school budgets that
traditionally have not included sufficient line items for technology. To address these challenges,
educational technology leaders need to be very skilled in deploying most up-to-date, effective
practices in collaborative, long-range, strategic planning. They must also possess additional
knowledge and skills related to the unique challenges of technology planning.
KSU CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 10
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and facilitators of the
teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values, and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public
and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process,
the teacher education faculty at KSU believe that the concept of expertise is central to preparing
effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming
Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that
expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master
teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve
student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses,
candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel
confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
Field Experience:
While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a variety of
school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may
include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating
in leadership activities, attending PTA/school board meetings, and participating in educationrelated community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore
every opportunity to learn by doing.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 10
Diversity:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and
assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore
how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific
methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure,
sexual orientation, and geographic region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences
provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an
individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information
contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.
Doctorate of Education (EdD)
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the The Kennesaw
State University Doctorate of Education program of the Bagwell College of Education reflect the
unique aspects of this degree. Collaboratively developed by faculty from across the university
and in consultation with community/school partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate
the high expectations we have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly, the
proficiencies reflect the complex nature of student learning in advanced degree programs leading
to a terminal degree. Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed below incorporate aspects
of knowledge, skills and dispositions within a single proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly
linked to our conceptual framework, The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching,
Learning and Leadership.
Graduates from the Doctorate of Education Program at Kennesaw State University
1. Demonstrate leadership as advocates for students and education. Candidates
a. synthesize and apply the latest research on learning, leadership, developmental theory
advocating the implementation of best practices and assist colleagues to do the same to
ensure all students learn.
b. are knowledgeable, articulate and think critically about educational practice, policy and
issues on national and international arenas.
c. understand, respond to , and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context in matters related to education.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 3
of 10
d. are knowledgeable about the factors contributing to safe physical environments for
education.
e. develop, articulate, implement, and steward a vision of learning supported by the
school community
2. Demonstrate leadership as agents for change, collaboration and collegiality. Candidates
a. understand the complexity of schools and the ambiguous nature of educational issues.
b. act in concert with and/or on behalf of colleagues to improve teaching and learning in
the classroom as supported by effective school, district, state level policies and
operations.
c. facilitate shared-decision making and teamwork.
d. improve teaching and learning by intentionally and systematically building networks of
influence at local, state, national and international arenas.
e. impact student learning for all and mentor other educators to do the same by effectively
working within the structures and culture of schools, families and communities.
f. support the teaching and learning process by soliciting all sources of funding and
educational resources.
3. Demonstrate leadership as mentors. Candidates
a. support and guide teachers to improve teaching and learning for all.
b. are committed to improving student learning by improving teaching and the learning
environment.
c. model routine, intentional, and effective use of technology while mentori8ng and
encouraging others to do the same.
4. Demonstrate leadership as expert teachers and instructional leaders. Candidates
a. are creative and flexible in their thinking and in seeking solutions to educational
challenges.
b. are knowledgeable of assessment, evaluation and accountability practices and critically
synthesize and utilize the data to improve student learning.
c. are master-teachers and instructional leaders possessing and demonstrating content and
pedagogical expertise who are able to make international comparisons in both areas.
d. develop and/or support appropriate, meaningful curricula that positively impact student
learning for all and assist others to do the same.
e. facilitate and support curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning
environments that integrate appropriate technologies to maximize teaching and
learning.
f. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings
to improve instructional practice and student learning.
5. Demonstrate leadership as models of professionalism. Candidates
a. effectively design and conduct educational research which positively influences
educational practice or policy.
b. exhibit ethical behavior in all professional and personal interactions.
c. respect others, value differences and are open to feedback.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 10
d. believe that for every problem there is a solution and actualize that belief when
engaging colleagues, students, families and community partners.
e. seek out responsibility and are accountable for their actions.
f. maintain current knowledge and best practices through continued professional
development.
6. Demonstrate leadership in meeting the needs of diverse constituents. Candidates
a. value and recognize the strength and power of diversity.
b. incorporate global perspectives and cultural richness in curriculum planning and
decision making.
c. address exceptionalities in planning, teaching, and assessment and respond to diverse
community interests and needs by mobilizing community resources.
d. proactively and intentionally advocate for and work to build educational environments
that are inclusive and supportive of diverse students, families and colleagues
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: (Aligned to Content Standards)
Candidates will be able to initiate and lead long-range strategic planning processes that are
focused on using educational technologies to improve student achievement. In pursuit of this
goal, this course will address the following learning objectives (ELCC Standard 1-6; NETS-A
Standard III, ISTE/NCATE TL Standards II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII):
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Staying abreast of current technology resources and strategies to support the diverse
needs of learners including adaptive and assistive technologies and disseminate
information to teachers (ELCC 2; Nets-A II; TL II)
2. Locating and evaluating current research on teaching and learning with technology when
planning learning environments and experiences (ELCC 2; Nets-A II; TL II)
3. Disseminating curricular methods and strategies that are aligned with district/region/state
/ national content and technology standards (ELCC 2; Nets-A II; TL II)
4. Investigating major research findings and trends related to the use of technology in
education to support integration throughout the curriculum (ELCC 2; Nets-A II; TL III)
5. Planning and implementing policies that support district-wide professional growth
opportunities for staff, faculty, and administrators (ELCC2; Nets-A I, III; TL V)
6. Communicating research and establish policies to promote safe and healthy use of
technology (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A IV; TL VI)
7. Using research findings in establishing policy and implementation strategies to promote
equitable access to technology resources for students and teachers (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A
IV; TL VI)
8. Developing plans to configure software/computer/technology systems and related
peripherals in laboratory, classroom cluster, and other appropriate instructional
arrangements (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A IV; TL VII)
9. Facilitating the development of a shared vision for comprehensive integration of
technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of the
vision (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A IV; TL VIII)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 10
10. Identifying and applying educational and technology related research, the psychology of
learning, and instructional design principles in guiding the use of computers and
technology in education (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A IV; TL VIII)
11. Communicating and applying principles and practices of educational research in
educational technology (ELCC 1, 5, 6; Nets-A IV; TL VIII)
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – aligned to Program Standards
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these
understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a
result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, the candidate will
demonstrate the following outcomes
Course objective
Doctoral
KSDs
1. Staying abreast of current technology
resources and strategies to support the
diverse needs of learners including
adaptive and assistive technologies and
disseminate information to teachers
2. Locating and evaluating current
research on teaching and learning with
technology when planning learning
environments and experiences
3. Disseminating curricular methods and
strategies that are aligned with
district/region/state / national content
and technology standards
5f
4. Investigating major research findings
and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support
integration throughout the curriculum
5. Planning and implementing policies
that support district-wide professional
growth opportunities for staff, faculty,
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Learning
Development
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
4b, 4e
Learning
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1a, 3a, 3b
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1a
1b
Learning
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5
Page 6
of 10
and administrators
6. Communicating research and establish 1a, 1b
policies to promote safe and healthy use
of technology
7. Using research findings in
establishing policy and implementation
strategies to promote equitable access to
technology resources for students and
teachers
8. Developing plans to configure
software/computer/technology systems
and related peripherals in laboratory,
classroom cluster, and other appropriate
instructional arrangements
9. Facilitating the development of a
shared vision for comprehensive
integration of technology and foster an
environment and culture conducive to
the realization of the vision
10. Identifying and applying educational
and technology related research, the
psychology of learning, and instructional
design principles in guiding the use of
computers and technology in education
11. Communicating and applying
principles and practices of educational
research in educational technology
1b, 5b
Learning
Development
Leader
Operations
Leader
1.5
Process
Improvement
Leader
Operations
Leader
1.5
4e
Operations
Leader
1.5
4e
Performance
Improvement
Leader
1.5
4e
Curriculum,
Instruction, &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1a, 4e
Learning
Development
Leader
Performance
Improvement
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Learning
Development
Leader
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 7
of 10
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Models of strategic planning
2. Unique challenges of Planning for Technology
3. Facilitating collaborative, community-based planning
4. Principles of project management
5. Review of state and federal technology planning requirements
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Candidates will participate in a series of online discussion forums and in-class activities
responding to assigned readings, recommended websites, and critical issues related to the
professional learning and instructional technology. Candidate responses should relate not
only to the question(s), but also to the comments made by classmates and/or instructor.
These responses should clearly demonstrate that candidates have read the required
articles, thoroughly examined recommended websites, and participated fully in course
assignments and exercises. Responses should be relevant to the topic and should serve to
move the discussion forward—not simply agree or disagree with what has already been
stated. Candidates should interact with classmates constructively and respectively,
allowing for everyone to participate. Candidates should follow the rules of netiquette to
be provided in class.
2. After reviewing principles of strategic planning, candidates will graphically represent the
planning process that they would use to produce a K-12 technology plan. The planning
process should include key activities, timeline, persons responsible and a budget needed
to produce the technology plan. Computer-generated graphic representations should be
supported by a 3-5 page text document explaining the process and a spreadsheet
representing the budget. Candidates will work individually to determine their own
planning processes, but will compare their work in class.
3. In small groups, candidates will construct and submit a “vision of learning” appropriate
for three -to -five-year instructional technology plans. The vision will be three to five
sentences and supporting statements explaining what will be seen. Groups will also
present a research-based rationale explaining why this particular vision is being
promoted. Vision statements and rationales should include references. Projects will be
presented to the class using PowerPoint or another approved presentation format and will
be posted on the class website.
4. Candidates will work individually to produce a three to five page paper on an expected
trend in educational technology in the next three, five, and seven years and the
implications of these trends on current strategic planning processes.
5. Candidates will submit at least one strategy that could be used for facilitating,
collaborative large group planning processes. The description should include the context
in which the strategy could be deployed; a list of materials and supplies needed; an
estimated time frame to deploy the strategy; the type of physical or online environment
most conducive to successful implementation of the strategy; and expected outcomes.
The description of the strategy should also include a rationale of why this strategy would
be considered a best practice. Types of strategies may include: relationship building;
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 8
of 10
prioritizing; consensus building; knowledge building; decision making; and/or visioning.
Examples will be provided in class.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (25% of grade)
Planning Process Description (15%)
Vision of Learning (20%)
Trends Paper (25%)
Facilitation Strategy (15%)
A:
B:
C:
F:
92% - 100%
84%-91%
75%-83%
74% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of
investigation associated with college-level studies. Papers should be typewritten, on 8 1/2 x 11 in. paper.
Action research work submitted should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure
accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Written work should be attractive and neat -ESPECIALLY WITH MATERIALS INTENDED FOR STUDENT USE.
ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT:
The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without
giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these
expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”
PROFESSIONALISM: CLASS ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION POLICY:
Attendance is required for each class session, and candidates are expected to be on time. Part of
your success in this class is related to your ability to provide peer reviews and feedback to your
group members regarding group projects. Furthermore, responding effectively and appropriately
to feedback from your peers and the professor is another measure of one’s professionalism. Since
each class meeting represents one week of instruction/learning, failure to attend class will impact
your performance on assignments and final exams. Class discussions, group work, and activities
require that everyone be present. There is no way to “make up” this class. Please be prepared
with all readings completed prior to class. You are expected to ask insightful and pertinent
questions.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Anderson, B. (1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership, 51 (1), 1418.
Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.
ASCD. (1995 Yearbook). Toward a coherent curriculum. Editor: James Beane,
Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publicatins.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 9
of 10
ASCD. (1997 Yearbook). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Editor:
Andy Hargreaves, Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.
Bernhardt, R., Hedley, C., Cattaro, G., and Svolopoulos, V. (eds.). (1994). Curriculum
leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st century. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Caine, R., and Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD Publications.
Castenell, J., and Pinar, W. (eds.). (1993). Understanding curriculum as racial text:
Representations of identity and difference in education. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doll, R. Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Farkas, S. (Principal researcher.) Effective public engagement. Washington, D.C.: New
Standards Project.
Foriska, T. (1998). Restructuring around standards: A practitioner’s guide to design and
implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin press.
Glickman, C. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henson, K. (1995). Curriculum development in an age of reform. New York:
HarperCollins.
Kantrowitz, B., and Wingert, P. (1998 October 5). Learning at home: Does it pass the test?
Newsweek. 132(14), 744-769.
McNeil, J. (1996). Curriculum,: A comprehensive introduction. (5th ed.).New York:
HarperCollins.
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Education Goals Panel. (1994). National education goals report: Building a nation
of learners. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Ornstein, A., and Behar, L. (eds.). (1995). Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., and Taubman, P. (1996). Understanding curriculum:
An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses.
New York: Peter Lang.
Ravich, D. (1998). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide.
Washington, D. C.: The brooking Institution.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning & memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum development.
Vars, G. (1991 October). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational
Leadership, 49(2). 14-15.
Willis, S. (1993 February). Creating ‘total quality’ schools. ASCD Update, 35(2), 97-109.
Wirt, J., et. al. (1998). The condition of education 1998. Washington, D.C.:U. S.
Department of Education, National center for Education Statistics.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 10