Plugging+In


 * =**Literary Review - Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology**=


 * Introduction**

This article sets out the rational and methodology for reforming our schools to include educational technologies to encourage Engaged Learning. This new learning also has the added benefit of making students highly skilled at using technologies which will benefit them upon entering the job market. We will explore their criteria and look and suggestions for implementation.


 * New Times/New Ways of learning**

New research and mindsets suggest that traditional models of learning, cost effectiveness of technology, and definitions of technology effectiveness do not adequately assess the effectiveness of educational technology. These traditional models have lost their relevancy in the 21st Century. Learners will be expected to apply critical thinking and strategy to solve new and complex problems. They must be able to adapt and have the ability to sift through volumes of resources quickly. What would have taken days to research in the past can literally be completed in a matter of minutes without ever leaving their computer. The contemporary models “promote engaged, meaningful learning and collaboration involving challenging and real-life tasks.” (Jones, 5) They also see technology as a “tool for learning, communication, and collaboration.” Old methods of evaluating the effectiveness of technology must also be rethought. “Effectiveness is not a function of technology, but rather of the learning environment and the capability to do things one could not do otherwise.” Technology increases the students’ ability to derive new solutions. New models have been developed that measure engagement of the students. Teachers serve as facilitators of learning as students collaborated to solve problem-based tasks. Student success is measured by their engagement in the task and their technological skill and performance.


 * Technology Effectiveness Framework**

The Technology Effectiveness Framework is a quadratic structure that plots performance along two continua. The first continuum ranges from passive learning to engaged learning while the other is measured from low technology performance to high technology performance. An “A” rating would find the student has high technology performance and was engaged. A “B” student, using this framework, would be engaged but have a low technology performance. “C” ratings garner passive learning with a high technology performance. A “D” rating has low performance and passive learning. With this framework, “decision makers can use it as they select and work toward specific curricular goals to promote engaged learning.” (Jones, 22) It can also be used to design technologies and programs. It is also a tool for schools to evaluate technology and its costs. This can categorize how each technology is typically used, highlight some exemplary approaches, and focuses on how the school uses each technology in regards to engagement and performance.


 * Policy Issues in Using Technology for Engaged Learning**

For effective technology integration, policy measures must be in place to promote engaged learning. First the policy needs to be universal so that all students in the school can have access to and are active with the technology. Many poorer school districts may have issues implementing these policies because of funding, curriculum focuses on low-level skills, teaching staff doesn’t have necessary supports, and bureaucracies in school exclude community involvement. School districts also have to make sure that students are meeting high standards and challenging tasks using technology. School funding structures may also have to be rethought if poorer areas cannot adequately fund the high cost of technology infrastructures. Coordination between community employers and the school district can also encourage workforce readiness programs and can help in students’ employability after school. The goals of engaged learning can only be obtained by universal commitment by teachers. Parents must also be informed and supportive of these initiatives.


 * Putting Policy into Place**

If commitments are made to engage learning through technology, the face of education will change. Federal agencies have already begun to release thousands of documents for information and research via the Internet. Federal agencies will use the Internet to become repositories of useful information. State and local initiatives may help with financial inadequacies. They too will provide education resources and support. Research labs will utilize education to test new educational technologies and programs. Publishers will also turn to technology and begin providing more titles in electronic formats. With the development of technology infrastructures, human infrastructures must also accompany it. These infrastructures will provide much needed support and give them assistance in making technology decisions.


 * Recommendations for Policymakers and Educators**

The article gives six specific recommendations for policymakers and educators. They include: This says to me that schools should have a plan, commit to that plan, and make wise financial decisions that will maximize the their investments.
 * 1) Schools should not support a technology design that does not empower learning.
 * 2) Schools should move toward distributed networks, as opposed to central source providers, in order to build communities of learners that include students and teachers as contributors.
 * 3) Schools must use technology – regardless of the specific one selected – to create powerful learning designs.
 * 4) Many schools can begin their technology-supported initiatives by investing in low-end technologies with high learning options.
 * 5) Schools must, from the outset, plan on connecting their technologies.
 * 6) Schools cannot invest in technologies alone. The must also invest in ongoing professional development, training, and support services.


 * Conclusion**

The Plugging In reconstitutes the goals and objectives of North Central’s 1993 article titled, Designing Learning and Technology for Educational Reform. I felt it offered a cleaner, more refined view of the proposals in the Reform article. Unfortunately, it provided very little new information and only served to further arguments made the first time. I still find myself agreeing with most of the points made, but implementing the policies and changing the minds of policymakers is made to sound easier than it is. In 1995, when this article was written, they were complaining about the use of standardized tests to evaluate student performance and detailed the need for reform in the inequitable way our schools are funded. Sixteen year later, those criticisms are still being made and continue to fall on deaf ears. To the contrary, things have gotten worse. The use of standardized assessments has increased and our schools continued to be funded based on assessed property values and taxes. The only way for the articles goals can come to fruition is to change the minds of policymakers not just toward technology, but more importantly, toward education.

Jones, Beau F., Gilbert Valdez, Jeri Nowakowski, and Claudette Rasmussen. //Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology//. Publication no. RP91002001. Washington, D.C.: Council for Educational Development and Research, 1995. Print. ||
 * Bibliography:**