Running head: TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 1

Technology Planning Paper

Steven M. Bradbury

Loyola University Maryland

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 2

Introduction

“There can be infinite uses of the computer and of new age technology, but if teachers

themselves are not able to bring it into the classroom and make it work, then it fails.” These

words uttered by Nancy Kassebaum, a former US Senator from Kansas, convey the heart of the

message and reasoning behind a technology innovation I would like to implement at my current

school, Armistead Gardens (AG). With a myriad of amazing tools at our fingertips, we ought to

be doing equally amazing things. However, my experience is that these tools are not used

properly, or even at all, thus rendering them ineffective. In Baltimore City Schools, we have

many underutilized tools. One of them is the Google for Education (G-Edu) set of applications.

Specifically, I want to focus on Google Classroom (G-Class) and the set of productivity tools

(Google Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Forms) associated with it. ​To lay out the plan for my Google

innovation at AG, I will discuss several key factors. First, I will analyze the current situation at

AG using several conditions and models to help elaborate. Next, I will discuss the stakeholders

who will be integral to my plan. Finally, I will detail my plan of action. It will not be an

overnight process, but will take time and the effort of a strategically formulated team. In the end,

I hope to equip teachers with the knowledge of, and confidence in, utilizing digital tools such as

Google Classroom so that we can open the doors to many of the “infinite uses of the computer.”

Analysis of Current Situation

Overview

Armistead Gardens (AG) School is a Title I school in Baltimore City. The diverse

population is consistently growing. The growth has been such that we now house two additional
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 3

modular units to help keep up with the expanding numbers. The Hispanic population is the

largest demographic on the rise. The neighbor attracts many families with limited English

language proficiency which leads to a high ESOL population. Due to the high ESOL population,

we have extra supports, particularly surrounding translation. With the large numbers, we have

some funding, particularly to invest in technology. We are not a one-to-one device school, but

we currently have a cart of devices for each grade level. Few teachers maximize the use of the

computers. In many cases, they act as an extra activity or game as opposed to enhancing the

teaching and learning. They are used as a tool of consumption as opposed to a tool for creation.

There are a couple teachers who started exploring more creation-oriented and collaborative tools,

such as G-Class and G-Edu. These teachers will be key contributors to the innovation described

below because they already have experience with it. Let us take a look at the G-Class innovation

and AG’s readiness through the lens of Rogers’ Perceived Attributes.

Rogers’ Perceived Attributes

Any new idea, or innovation, will have its own unique rate of acceptance. Rogers (2003)

writes, “The characteristics of innovations, as perceived by individuals, help to explain their

different rates of adoption” (p. 14) As mentioned above, the G-Class innovation will take time,

and a lot of effort from a specific team of individuals. I will examine why time will be needed

using Rogers’ five perceived attributes.

The relative advantage of G-Class is inherent to a tech-minded individual. However,

others with more uneasiness about utilizing technology will ask questions like, “How is this

better than what I am already doing?” The answer to that question is multi-faceted, but cannot
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 4

start with G-Class itself. Rather, we must start with instilling confidence in simply using

computers efficiently and regularly. To many, this is the hurdle or barrier that “wastes”

instruction time. A solution is not simple, but will take time, scheduling, and influence from

colleagues and students who meet success using technology regularly. Once the comfort and

confidence is present, the conversation about advantages of G-Class can begin.

Some advantages of implementing G-Class include the ease of efficient communication

to the classroom, differentiation, collaboration, and creating a paperless classroom. G-Class

offers teachers the opportunity to send out messages, templates, assignments, or other tasks at the

click of a button. Students respond by digitally submitting their assignment or task. Students

can message the teacher to ask for more information. Students can also share documents with

one another to collaborate. All parties can track changes made to the tasks. If a teacher wants to

differentiate the assignment, different or modified tasks can be sent to any individual of his or

her choosing by selecting a check box. All of this is done paperlessly and can be accessed

anywhere the internet is available. G-Class offers a classroom environment in the cloud. Once

the barrier of using computers efficiently and regularly is removed, the advantages of a Google

Classroom environment are apparent and attractive. However, it will take time to get some

individuals up to speed with using computers regularly, so the relative advantage will be slower

to develop.

The compatibility of implementing G-Class is high due to the influx of technology. With

the bulk of testing online, providing a platform to practice some of those digital skills fits in with

the needs of preparation for those assessments. More importantly, practicing the digital skills is
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 5

vital because they are life skills. There are opportunities to teach appropriate online presence, or

digital citizenship, through posting and commenting using the tools within G-Class and other

G-Edu productivity tools. It is affords classroom teachers the opportunity to promote

collaboration in a real-world sense. Google tools are becoming more widely used, and using

them in school is preparation for life outside of school. Adopting a G-Class environment will

offer skills that today’s world uses regularly. Once again, a barrier is the regular use of

computers. If a teacher does not use computers regularly for instruction, implementing G-Class

is not highly compatible.

The complexity of a G-Class implementation also depends on the relative comfort and

experience of the teacher. If the teacher is well-versed in using Google, the complexity level

drops. If the teacher is unfamiliar with Google, the complexity level increases. The complexity

level increases further if the teacher does not regularly use computers during instruction. For

these reasons, not every teacher will be targeted to implement G-Class. My goal is to identify

tech-ready staff throughout different grade levels that would implement G-Class with his or her

students. In choosing tech-ready individuals, we reduce complexity and increase the

aforementioned relative advantage and compatibility. With these in place, it allows the teacher

and students to have more time for exploration. As these teachers use it with their students,

students become more versed in G-Class and G-Edu tools. In turn, it can help influence teachers

in the long-term who are not currently ready. Strategically selecting teachers across different

grade levels will help spread the knowledge and comfortability of G-Class, thus reducing

complexity.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 6

The trialability of the G-Class implementation is also relative to the level of comfort in

using technology during instruction. In other words, those comfortable using technology,

particularly Google tools, will find great trialability in this implementation. There are many

different tools and actions to explore. Teachers will have the chance to find what tools work best

for them, and what kind of management works well. I do not expect each teacher to implement

the exact same way. For example, one teacher may post a daily assignment. Another teacher

may use G-Class more as a forum to facilitate discussion. Both options are great uses of the tool.

Teachers should have the opportunity to try what works best for their style and their content.

G-Class offers several different functions and integration with other Google tools that give

teachers these opportunities. The common piece is the actual integration of G-Class to help

facilitate teaching and learning. Specific uses are open to interpretation and highly adaptable.

The observability of G-Class and G-Edu implementation is somewhat immediate, with

more aspects developing over time. A classroom run utilizing G-Class will look and sound

different. The teacher will become more of a facilitator, and the students will take on roles of

creator. Overtime work will spill out of the classroom when students and teachers realize they

can utilize G-Class and G-Edu tools anywhere they have the internet. Learning to navigate this

platform will open doors, particularly in comfortability, to using other digital tools. Many

productivity skills transfer to other platforms, such as Office 365. Perseverance will start to

develop as students learn troubleshooting techniques. Using technology more regularly will help

shape practical digital citizenship skills. Teachers and students will start seeing some changes

quickly and reap additional, observable benefits down the road.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 7

The rate at which the G-Class innovation takes place hinges on the perceived attributes

mentioned above. To tech-ready teachers, their perception will lead to quicker implementation.

To staff that are not as comfortable with technology, the rate will be significantly slower. For

this reason, I plan to start with a few staff members across different grade levels who have

exhibited tech-readiness. By starting with these teachers, I hope to develop G-Class advocates

that will in turn be able to model it to their colleagues. Students across grade levels will be

impacted, and they can also help influence the teachers who are uncomfortable with technology.

This second hand implementation will take time, and it may not reach every individual, but that

is acceptable. G-Class should not be mandated, but I believe all should be aware, exposed, and

educated about it to better inform teachers who could potentially adopt G-Class in their own

class. As teachers become more tech-ready, I believe more will be enthusiastic about

implementing G-Class.

Ely’s Eight Conditions

Donald Ely (1990) developed a series of eight conditions that facilitate technological

change (p. 299). By exploring the presence of these conditions at AG, I will determine how

ready AG is to accept change, particularly as it relates to the G-Class innovation. The conditions

are dissatisfaction with the status quo, existence of knowledge and skills, availability of

resources and time, rewards or incentives, expected participation, commitment, and evident

leadership. Change can happen without all of these present. Ely (1990) concedes, “We may

strive to attain all the conditions, but realistically all of them will seldom be present for all

innovations in all environments” (p. 302). Ely (1990) continued by discussing how missing
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 8

some may diminish the effectiveness of the innovation, but the list can be utilized as a

“checklist” to help target conditions that need more support (p. 302). I will use Ely’s conditions

as a checklist to determine AG’s readiness to adopt the G-Class implementation.

Is there dissatisfaction with the current digital skill level of students at AG? Yes, there is

great dissatisfaction, particularly regarding word processing and digital citizenship. These two

terms may not be the ones chosen by the majority of the staff, but they are at the heart of the

dissatisfaction. I have many teachers and administrators talk to me as the technology teacher

about how poorly students type. I hear how unfair an online assessment is when students

struggle to type one sentence with appropriate capitalization and punctuation, let alone an essay

in a timed session. They are not exaggerated complaints, these are facts. I see it first hand and

live the frustration when I attempt to incorporate typing practice in my once a week, forty-five

minute classes. There is also dissatisfaction with how students are misusing and abusing their

digital presence, especially on social media. It is a real problem, and not only at AG. The

dissatisfaction with our student’s digital skills is extremely evident. The staff at AG wants a

change.

Many of the staff do possess the knowledge and skills to help start the change. However,

to fully implement the G-Class innovation, I will rely on a smaller cohort of individuals who

possess the necessary digital skills. Not everyone is ready to use G-Class and the G-Edu tools as

a regular part of their classroom. Possessing the digital skills is one thing, but a willingness to

try a new technology tool is another. There is a level of patience and know-how to troubleshoot

common problems that arise. I work with a gifted staff, but a smaller subset are the ones who
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 9

currently have the ability to facilitate a digital environment for learning such as G-Class. This

subset is the team I will target and support to roll out the G-Class innovation.

Are the resources available to implement G-Class? Yes, but they are not available to

every student all the time. Google accounts are already created at the district level for every

student and teacher. We do not have one-to-one devices, however. We have shared carts at each

grade level. Because of this, specific teachers will be selected to implement G-Class.

Realistically, it may not be everyday, all day due to the device limitations. We are fortunate to

have as much technology as we do, but we still have to share. Teachers will be strategically

selected to maximize the amount of time they can use carts in order to implement G-Class.

Time is an invaluable resource that always seems to be lacking. In the case of the

G-Class innovation, time must never be cut short. It will take careful, strategic planning to select

the appropriate individuals. Time will be afforded to meet with and train these individuals. I am

fortunate to have two staff members, not including myself, who started using G-Class last year.

They will be the core of a G-Class Professional Learning Community (PLC) I will create at AG.

We will create our own Google Classroom to communicate, share best practices, and help

troubleshoot. In addition to the online forum, we will meet once a quarter to check-in, reflect

and adapt as needed. Vertical planning was put into our schedules for next year which will help

create built-in common meeting times. While time always seems to be waning, it is the

condition we need to emphasize at AG.

Another condition that needs a lot of attention is the presence of rewards and incentives.

The AG staff is extremely motivated intrinsically, but over the last few years, it started to
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 10

diminish due to an apparent lack of recognition. I hear this a lot from staff, many of whom

typically go out of their way to support the work at AG. To some, it feels like the hard work and

extra effort are overlooked because it is now the norm. It helps a lot to be encouraged and

recognized for the hard work. With the implementation of G-Class, it must be evident that the

additional work, particularly upfront, will truly pay off. Ely (1990) discussed how the reward

will be different for different people (p. 301), and this is extremely true at AG. Some will feel

rewarded by seeing positive changes in their teaching and learning. Others will be motivated by

being recognized as an instructional leader using G-Class. Still others will be motivated by a

positive note in their mailbox. Differentiated incentives will happen over the next year to

encourage and motivate the implementation of G-Class.

Tied directly to motivation is expected and encouraged participation. It is vital that each

member of the PLC feel valued as an important contributor to the work, and the school as a

whole. While some of the PLC had previous experience with G-Class, everyone must be seen as

a contributor. This condition is present at AG, but sometimes lacks the previous condition of

relevant rewards and incentives. I hope to capitalize on this understanding by not neglecting the

relationship between the two conditions.

Fostering the value of participation for each PLC member will strengthen the

commitment. Commitment is another condition that is very strong at AG. We have dedicated

staff that will faithfully carry out programs and activities they believe in. I must emphasize the

concept of believing in the innovation. Building this belief within the PLC will hopefully spill

out to others in the school. It will start with the two staff members who have already started
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 11

using G-Class. Their feedback and encouragement will strengthen that of the members of the

PLC, who will in time impact others that may want to start using G-Class. With quarterly

check-ins throughout the year and the online Google Classroom for the PLC, I will be able to

gauge the level of commitment and participation during the school year.

Commitment is not only needed by the members of the PLC, but also from school

leadership. They are an integral part of this implementation. In the AG community, leadership

falls into a couple different groups of people. It is the administration, but also the instructional

leadership team (ILT). Specific to the G-Class implementation, I would also include our

classroom support team with ITD who helps manage the Google accounts, as well as the two

teachers who started using G-Class during last school year. Having all these leaders on board

and active in the process of our implementation will be the extremely important. Strong

leadership, which is evident at AG, will help ensure that the conditions for technological change

are present and working together to improve student achievement.

ACOT model

Apple Computers and several districts collaborated to research the impact technology had

on teaching and learning. A research project conducted in part by Dwyer, Ringstaff and

Sandholtz, coined Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT), identified phases of technological

implementation. The phases are Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention.

What the researchers noticed was that “...new patterns of teaching and learning emerged at all

sites” (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1990, p. 4). AG is no different. As I already mentioned,

AG has been enriched by a lot of technology. I will use the ACOT model to help identify where
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 12

the school and individuals are currently placed within this series of stages. As innovations such

as G-Class take root, I hope to see a progression through the stages.

As a school, AG sits at the adoption stage while approaching adaptation. It is difficult to

characterize an entire school because it is made up of individuals with a wide range of abilities

and access to technology and technological knowledge. I arrived at this stage distinction due to

the fact that technology is not something new and foreign. All classrooms use some type of

technology by modifying traditional instruction to incorporate the computers, interactive

whiteboards, or both. The ACOT research summarizes it this way: “...the balance of [the

teachers’] concerns began to tilt towards using computers rather than connecting them” (Dwyer,

Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1990, p. 4). I added that AG was approaching adaptation because we do

have a healthy group that are operating at this stage. It is evidenced by the frequent use of

computers to complete assignments and tasks with tools such as word processing and

presentation tools. These type of assignments are starting to become commonplace among

classrooms that regularly utilize computers. It is beginning to spread as teachers become more

comfortable. They become local experts, then their knowledge begins to spread to other

classrooms and impact positive change in computer use. This is my hope for the G-Class

innovation. As several teachers meet success and become local experts, their experience will

influence colleagues and cause positive change in the implementation of G-Class and the G-Edu

tools. Because many are already using word processing and presentation tools, the assimilation

of G-Edu tools such as Docs and Slides is a logical connection.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 13

The subgroup of tech-ready teachers entice me to place AG at approaching the

Adaptation stage. As a group, these teachers are at Adaption and approaching Appropriation.

ACOT characterizes this as “...the point at which an individual comes to understand technology

and use it effortlessly as a tool to accomplish real work” (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1990,

p. 5). Individuals in this groups have flashes of this effortless integration. In their classroom, the

computer is starting to become as ubiquitous as a pencil. It is starting, and that is why I still say

they are approaching Appropriation. I would put myself in this group. As the technology

teacher and tech liaison, I have the luxury of using devices everyday. It is easier for me to use

the computers “effortlessly.” I believe others would experience the same thing given daily,

regular access to computers. Still, I falter at the “real work” part of the ACOT description.

Many tasks I deliver are contrived assignments and projects to help teach students how to use

tools such as Google Docs and Slides. I long to challenge students with real work that shows a

deeper understanding of word processing. I want move beyond teaching how to center text and

bold key terms. I know some students are ready, and acknowledge that the reason we sometimes

hold back is because we may not feel ready. This is why I place the subgroup at approaching

Appropriation.

I long to move into the Appropriation stage, then start seeking the Invention stage. We

have some work to do to get there. One of the biggest barriers is the consistent access to

technology that is necessary to move through these higher stages. I am afforded this access, but

most others are not. For now, the implication is that we need to strategically develop a plan to

maximize the use of the technology we do have. Specifically this means creating dependable
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 14

schedules to share the resources we have so that the appropriate staff have regular, scheduled use

of technology. It is not appropriate to create a schedule that excludes less tech-ready individuals

if the goal is to slowly get everyone up to speed. If we want to move the school through the

phases, and not just a subgroup, we need to incorporate each stakeholder. Currently, it may not

be equal time, but we cannot exclude access from some individuals. In order to help alleviate the

strain of sharing, I will also begin looking for grants and other opportunities to acquire more

technology. With the acquisition of more technology comes the delivering of professional

development. The answer is not just to throw computers at the problem. Teachers need to know

how to incorporate these within their instruction more than just making students consumers of

technology. Through innovations like G-Class and the G-Edu tools, we desire to make them

creators with technology.

Stakeholders

To accomplish these goals, it will take the work of many dedicated individuals. It starts

with the leadership of the school including the administration (admin) team and the ILT. The

admin is a sub-group of the ILT, a group of twelve individuals with varying roles and

responsibilities among the staff at AG. All have been identified as leaders in a particular content

or role within the building. These members have direct influence over the staff and are vital to

rolling out the G-Class innovation. Their support and encouragement will help fuel the

motivation of those implementing the innovation, as mentioned during the discussion of Ely’s

conditions for technological change.

The most obvious set of stakeholders are the teachers who will be implementing the

innovation itself. These will be selected teachers representing a variety of grades and noted for
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 15

their current use of technology. My goal is to work with these individuals to become experts in

using G-Class and G-Edu tools so they will not only impact their students, but their colleagues

over time. In addition to me, there are two teachers currently using G-Class: a third grade

teacher and a sixth grade teacher. Joining us will be a fourth grade teacher, an eighth grade

teacher, and an ESOL teacher. Given our large ESOL population, I felt it was extremely

important to have this group represented. Though three of us have already started using G-Class,

we have not had any time to collaborate and share successes and needs. In convening this

proposed group, I hope to create a PLC that will encourage, troubleshoot, and share best

practices. The G-Class PLC will do the bulk of the work during the initial implementation.

Another group is a small team at headquarters called the Office of Media and

Instructional Technology (OMIT). They have been extremely valuable as I learned my new

position as technology teacher. This team helps manage the Google accounts and will be great

for troubleshooting, training, and further connecting us to others in the district. Their expertise

and experience will be a valuable resource. OMIT also has a dedicated website to offer tips,

ideas and training for Google users. This site will be a great resource as we get started. In time,

I hope that the PLC at AG can contribute to it.

Plan of Action

Vision​: Classrooms will be transformed as teachers become facilitators and students become

responsible digital citizens through the integration of Google for Education tools, such as Google

Classroom.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 16

Purpose​: Teachers will better utilize the technology that is available by facilitating learning

through the use of Google Classroom, influencing their colleagues through collaboration, and

helping to develop responsible digital citizens.

Resources​:

● Key staff members detailed in the “Stakeholders” section

● Computers and carts with scheduled, regular use

● High speed internet

● Google accounts

● Technical support (OMIT)

● OMIT Google users website (mentioned in “Stakeholders”)

Timeline​:

Timeframe Stakeholders Action

Summer PD ILT and PLC -The Leadership team will be presented with the plan to
members implement G-Class in a few selected classrooms.
-Schedules will be consulted to find the best way to share
computers.
-PLC members will be identified and formally contacted.
-Links to G-Class overviews and training will be shared
(OMIT website).

August PD G-Class PLC -PLC members will gather to formally lay out the plan.
-A PLC Google Classroom will be established and PLC
members will join to begin exploring G-Class.
-A schedule to share devices will be completed.

Fall 2018 PLC and -Teachers will set up G-Classrooms for their class(es).
OMIT -OMIT will help troubleshoot any account issues.
-PLC will begin sharing best practices on the PLC
G-Classroom.

Ongoing Tech liaison -Tech liaison will visit classes implementing G-Class to
and PLC help provide feedback and learn best practices that can be
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 17

shared.
-PLC will use their G-Classroom to communicate ongoing
progress.
-Tech liaison will help prompt discussion with posts on the
Google Classroom Stream page.

Quarterly PLC -PLC will meet each quarter to check-in face-to face (this
could be adjusted if we find that online check-ins are more
efficient).

Winter 2018 PLC and -OMIT will help connect the AG PLC with other groups
OMIT within the district, or neighboring districts who are
committed to using G-Class.
-PLC members will begin peer observations.

Spring 2019 PLC -PLC will begin looking at integrating additional

applications within the G-Class environment, such as
Kami, Sites, and Keep.
-PLC peer observations will continue. Interested
colleagues will be invited to observe, too.

Summer 2019 ILT, PLC, and -PLC will debrief with ILT on year one of implementation.
influenced -PLC will host mini-PDs for colleagues interested in
colleagues learning more about G-Class. A new cohort will start
forming for school year 2019-2020.
-PLC and ILT will start developing formal PD sessions for
next school year.

Fall 2019 PLC and new -PLC will deliver PD for staff who want to start using
Cohort G-Class and G-Edu tools.

Expected Outcomes​:

● Six selected staff members will implement G-Class with their class(es).

● Students will regularly utilize computers in these identified classes to access and

complete tasks and assignments on G-Class.

● Students will develop digital citizenship skills through collaboration of tasks, posting,

and commenting using the G-Class platform.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 18

● Staff and students will positively influence others to begin adopting G-Edu tools and

G-Class during their respective teaching and learning.

● A climate of collaboration and shared practice will grow among staff and students.

Evaluation​: Quarterly check-ins will help determine the progress of implementation as a whole.

Student progress will be monitored through the tracking of student work/tasks. Peer

observations and debriefs will be valuable points of data to further track the implementation.

Conclusion

Through this technology plan, I desire to educate and encourage teachers to use digital

tools such as Google Classroom as part of their daily teaching and learning. I hope to inspire

confidence in taking risks. Through daily use of computers, I hope to develop a culture of digital

citizenship that impacts the lives of students beyond the school walls. The implementation of

G-Class will be a gradual, but strategic plan that will equip individuals to become local experts

and in turn pass on their learning to others. Through consistent feedback and frequent dialogue,

best practices will be learned and shared. A culture of collaboration will become more evident

among staff and students. Ultimately, Senator ​Kassebaum’s ​challenge of an infinite number of

uses for the computer will no longer be hypothetical, but the reality.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 19

References

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Haymore Sandholtz, J. (1990). ​Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow

Research, Report 8: Teacher Beliefs and Practices Part I: Patterns of Change.

Cupertino, CA: Apple Computers, Inc.

Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology

innovations. ​Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (2), 298-305.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). ​Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.