If there was a standing job description for a tech integrator, it might include the following: “Ability to work with little supervision. Strong diagnostic and psychological skills. Able to shift focus quickly, easily and often. Must possess good sense of humor. Sales experience helpful.”
Tech integrators make their own schedules and are left to make decisions on a myriad of classrooms k-12. Sometimes it feels like we have no boss and sometimes it feels like we ARE the boss. Of course we have bosses but they are often stretched way beyond thin and self sufficiency is appreciated. Sometimes we operate like Tinkerbelle, spreading pixie-dust and performing magic to fix holes in teaching and learning with technology. What we seldom do is teach and train in a systematic method that is carefully planned and implemented building or district wide.
I’ve been an integrator for a very long time and always thought I did a pretty good job. I was busy, the teachers liked what I was doing in the classrooms, the kids were competent and engaged. Then things changed.
We’ve moved as a district to a student centered model of teaching and learning. Our teachers are tightly focused on student success. They spend hours working on strategies to help support the many levels of learners that are present in their heterogenously grouped classrooms. This tight focus has proved problematic for me.
In the past, I’d go into classrooms and do whole class lessons on digital citizenship, search strategies, or presentation skills (see the post on Dodging Presentation Fatigue). I shared weekly Tech Goodies via our conference email. I chatted teachers up in the hallways. Business was good.
Now it’s tough to get into classrooms. Students are working on a variety of things so whole class instruction is no longer appropriate. No problem- I’ll offer small group support in the areas I think they are most in need of. Off I go to organize the modules, send out the emails, chat in the hallways, and wait for the requests to come pouring in.
Except they aren’t. I’ve spent more time at my desk than ever before and it’s lonely there. It does, however, give me time to reflect on what’s going wrong and how to fix it.
Here’s what I realized. I am going about this all wrong. I am standing on the outside like a consultant. Change is happening all around me and I am still working in the same old “sage on the stage” environment, assuming I know what others need to know and just waiting for a way to tell them.
My district has spent a great deal of money sending me to graduate school to get a degree in Instructional Design. I originally pursued this because my grasp on content organization is weak, having gotten a degree in Equine Studies upon which to place my endorsement (another story for another post). I started looking at my job through the eyes of an instructional designer and quickly realized that I was working at the wrong end of the problem.
Most districts have a district technology plan. It’s usually a state requirement. It speaks to budgets and infrastructure and staffing and vaguely to student implementation. What they don’t have is a Technology Integration Plan. A district technology integration plan is a way to create a system of integration that gets to the heart of what we want to do with the technology that we are provided, district wide, in a formalized fashion.
Without getting deeply into instructional design pedagogy, it works like this:
Begin with a needs analysis. Both the district and your buildings begin each year with goals. Some of these will deal with technology or can be supported with technology. Have face to face conversations or submit surveys to the organizational leaders in your district. Find out where teachers feel they need help- or where they see the biggest gaps for their students. Ask students as well. This will help you eliminate assumptions that you will be bringing to the table. It will also help you develop goals for your plan.
Goals. Most of us have to write them and we do. Then we tuck them away and don’t think of them again, but they are essential to the success of your plan. Think of them as objectives for learning. Create them based on the results of your needs surveys, not based on your assumptions of what’s needed.
Once your goals are created, you can begin to brainstorm the problems and opportunities that will arise as you develop your training. This will help tease out the issues that can be solved by training and those that can’t. For example, if one of the goals is to bring more equity to the equipment distribution across your district, the problem may be that your budget won’t allow the purchase of more equipment. Solutions could include redistributing equipment and allowing teachers flexibility in their schedules to allow for sharing a well-equipped space. You’ll find that not everything is a training problem.
From here you can begin developing a system of training on the topics that will be most advantageous to your organization. You’ll find that it is beginning to look suspiciously like creating a lesson plan- and you are right. The tough thing can be finding time to present the training; however, since you are aligning your training with building and district goals, the buy-in may be considerably higher than what you have had in the past. You’ll have a good argument for sliding into inservice days.
Each district is different in how they handle their integrationists- but what is often universal is our ability to change how we work. We can be influential in how our buildings do business with technology. I’m working on this plan even as we speak, and have great hope that this will turn into a big win-win for everyone. Stay tuned.