Running head: TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 1

Technology Planning Paper – Elkridge Landing Middle School

Jodi Bahrijczuk

Loyola University
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 2

Introduction:

To inform the audience of my certain placement in my professional workplace is needed

before tackling the task of proper planning to move my school forward in innovative teaching

and learning with technology. When referring to a school wide movement in my position as a

special educator, my population is very tiny in comparison to the entire school. I am currently at

Elkridge Landing Middle School, in the Regional ALS (Academic Life Skills) program. In this

program, the class sizes range from 2-4 students in a self-contained setting with direct,

personalized instruction geared towards the individuals IEP goals and objectives. The behaviors

of the students as well as their cognitive level, factors into their placement in my program. For

my technology innovation idea, I will be referencing Rogers (2003) “diffusions of innovation”;

specifically the innovation element incorporating the hardware component. In my class, the

students most likely haven not been exposed to technology besides using it for personal

entertainment. My students are used to using technology to watch videos or listen to music, and

never using it for educational purposes. Therefore, my technology planning paper will focus on

the integration of technology within my own lessons in my regional ALS program. Trialing this

progress, with hopeful success, to then share it with the special education population to have a

resource for their own incorporating into their own classroom someday.

Analysis of Current Situation:

Currently some students in Regional ALS program demonstrate their comprehension

better with technology. Others have not even been given the chance. This relative advantage

gives them the outlet to use technology can further their success more than the typical paper and

pencil model that they are being forced to use. The world is becoming technical and to hold back
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 3

special education in this movement would not be fair for the students when transitioning into

adulthood where the skills and usage will be relevant to them becoming part of society. Starting

to show them technology skills, such as internet navigation and typing skills will cover both past

experiences of their peers technical skills as well as them individually adapting to the future

skills and values the world is adapting to now. My students need this compatibility to be

introduced to them sooner than later because these new skills do not come so easy to them. They

will need more time and individual instruction that addresses their strengths and weaknesses

cognitively, mentally and physically. The complexibility of what technology and the degree they

use it will range, depending on the students willingness and patience to understand the material.

Some students may be able to use a keyboard to spell simple questions into Google whereas

others may just be capable of learning how to verbally request their needs to Siri in their phone

to help them with the question at hand. During the course of modifying my lessons to integrate

technology, the trialability may be limited. This whole process is trial and error, depending on

the student’s willingness to use the technology. This trial time may differ from student to student

and even between teacher to teacher. The teacher may stagger the use of technology in their

lesson to accommodate their population they are trailing technology on. The observability will be

measured by each student’s baseline observations and previous exposure to technology. A

teacher may have a student that can only use technology for games entertainment purposes

because that is what he is used to using it for. Change can be hard for the special education

population so switching uses of technology on some student will not be tolerable. We hope that

the results will show an increase in accuracy in the student’s IEP goals and objectives when

technology is used in the classroom.

ELMS is at a higher entry level of ACOT than my classroom. I would rate our school at a
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 4

different level than my classroom. Our school is at the adaptation level when my classroom is

only at the entry/adoption level. The school has projection screens, mobile laptop carts, LCD

projectors. Some students have access to IPads for their academic accommodations. Every

teacher is given a Mac computer and paraeducators are given IPads. My students have IPads that

have Voice Output Technology to verbally communicate for my nonverbal students. They push

words attached with given images to communicate their wants and needs. When it comes to the

adoption stage of ACOT, the whole school grading system is on a software called Canvas. It is

used to share all paperwork digitally, as well as a hub for teacher’s to post their powerpoints and

certain assignments. Students are to use Canvas to access their grades and use Canvas to link

themselves to their classwork. It is on the student to check Canvas for announcements and each

courses tasks. My students do not use Canvas because they are not engage with the high

technology format that Canvas is made. Their adoption is to engage with their lower aged icons

on their IPads to express their communication needs. Due to the fact that I am not out in general

education, I cannot speak to the adaptations being done in individual teachers classrooms. I use

technology alongside with my teacher when it is appropriate and engaging for my students. Only

one of my students enjoys using technology to support his instruction. Besides that I use their

Voice Output Devices with the words that we are using in the lesson to increase their vocabulary

and getting them to communicate through their devices with the terms we use in class. That is the

extent to which I have adaptation seen in my personal classroom. I do not see the levels of

Appropriation and Invention of ACOT in my school. It could be the fact that I do not see

multiple types of technologies being blended together or that students are not to that phase in

technology yet. I know that in my classroom, I may not ever get to the Appropriation and

Invention due to my students capabilities. It is not to say they cannot ever reach these stages but
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 5

in my transition period of middle school, we deal with more life skill situations of learning how

to dress, bathe and how to ask for things we need without being aggressive. I want to start at the

entry level of ACOT with the Regional ALS program and then we will see where our obstacles

are in making our way through the ACOT levels.

To get a better read of where my school is on the ACOT level, I walked around to three

different teachers who allowed me to take a look at the technology they incorporate into their

classrooms. The all commonly used Google Suite and Canvas, so my analysis of ACOT is based

on this. Here is the data I found and where I would categorize them on the ACOT level.

● Teacher one uses the excuse that his curriculum does not present itself for the use of

iPads, or Canvas. He has been teaching for over thirty years and does not see the value in

technology, and especially not the learning management system. He is at the entry level

of the ACOT model and has no dissatisfaction with the status quo (Ely, 1990), but is

merely interested in using email for personal communication and Canvas for posting final

grades.

● Teacher two instructs students to use Google Suite for writing and sharing documents

with her. At times, she has students make presentations using Google Slides. Since her

curriculum is based in writing, this makes sense to her. However, teacher two says that

students should know how to use technology, but that she doesn’t have time to learn it

herself. As a result, she is stuck in the adoption stage of the ACOT model.

● Teacher three, uses Google Suite regularly, as his curriculum is also in the humanities, so

this makes sense with regard to writing on the computer. Additionally, he has students

present projects by giving them options to use Sway, Puppet Pals, Comic Life, and

similar apps. He is in the adaptation stage of the ACOT model. Although he likes to use
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 6

technology, his lessons are still teacher-directed, rather than centered in student-based

learning.

From this, I reflected that my hypothesis of the general population of teachers being in

the adoption/adaptation phase was somewhat wrong. Teachers are not super familiar with

technology or are refusing to stray from that of which they know or the innovations that are

being presented to them.

To dive right into Ely’s 8 Conditions for Change is where I started my technology

innovation journey. I could immediately see that My school and the staff want change but also

refuse it at the same time. The staff normally take to complaining about the ways things are,

whether it be a new rule or expectation being put in place or one not being implemented to fix a

problem. In my first innovation, I had tried to address change with too large of my school

population and in this condition is where I saw my mistake. For change to happen you have to

first start small and grow from there. I can change my classroom with my innovation before I can

change the whole school.

In Ely’s second condition for change, knowledge and skill have to exist. I feel that in my

school, I still have to find the right people to help me in incorporating technology into my special

education classroom. I am no technology genius, so I will have to find someone that could help

me navigate an IPad or computer to download items I may need. Other people I could reach out

to are the special education resource teachers from “higher up”, as they say. These people may

know more about what skills my innovation requires.

Two years ago, my school used to be a technology trial school, in the fact that all students

were given IPads to use. That is no longer in use, so I am finding that teachers do not have
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 7

enough resources or not enough time with the minimal laptop/IPad carts that everyone is to

check out and share. The nice thing about being first, in special education, and second, being in a

self-contained classroom with 2-5 students is the ability to get resources. Some students by law

have to be given certain technology for their communication needs or to scribe in a different way

then physically writing. We are able to get technology resources if we can prove that it will

further their learning.

Time is never available for teachers. That is the world of teaching and every teacher can

relate to the lack of time not being a resource. Time can be a double ended sword when it comes

to change. There are some times when teachers want change to happen and it takes a lot longer

or change being forced on a school and the staff not adapting to it well. This resource in time is a

negative for me at the moment with it being a time of a new principal, vice principal and staff

members transferring out of our building. No one is having time to adapt lessons because they

are picking up for the lack of others. Integrating is not occurring because of all the new

stakeholders learning their new roles. At this point, for this Ely condition to function, my school

is playing the waiting game for the dust to settle before anymore change occurs (Ely, 1990).

I am finding that to give technology for students to work on independently is both a reward and

incentive for the student and teacher. The student gets to use something familiar on their own to

gain that self pride in doing something without the help of an adult. My students do not have

many things they can do by themselves so to be given 10 minutes to trace their ABC’s on an

iPad in a reward. For the teacher, it gives them 10 minutes for a break, to watch their student

succeed on their own. Yes, in the beginning, the teacher will be more hands-on and needing to

assist but that will fade and to be given more time to prep for the next activity while the student

is using technology is an incentive to strive to that goal for the teacher in the room.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 8

When it comes to the last three Conditions of Change by Ely; Participation is Expected &

Encouraged, Commitment by Those Who are Involved, and Leadership is Evident, I find that

this falls heavily on the stakeholders that would be unfamiliar with my students. My

administration and technology teacher do not know the culture and expectations of my

classroom, as they heavily differ from the general education classrooms. I would need to teach

them the environment that they are stepping heavily into and make sure they understand what

this technology innovation will do to my classroom. They have no choice in participation once

they have become a stakeholder. Their commitment levels must be through the roof and ready to

morph when need be. And lastly, their leadership must be evident because they are now

advocating for a population that has trouble doing that for themselves. All of the stakeholders

must try to put themselves in these students shoes to realize how much of an impact technology

can have on their lives and doing what we all hope to give our students. A chance to be

independent and a chance to learn.

Stakeholders at ELMS:

Without a doubt, the key stakeholders to move ELMS along the ACOT model and help

us as a community diffuse technological innovations effectively will be the new administrators;

the technology resource teacher; the other Regional ALS classroom teacher and the students.

● Administrators: The success of my internship really depends upon the administration’s

vision for how far-reaching technology will be utilized in the special education program

at ELMS. I am assuming that the administration will continue the IPad initiative, as
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 9

HCPSS has mandated this learning management system. How in-depth we will be able to

use weekly PIP times, professional implementation periods, will also be dependent upon

the vision shared with admin. I am easy to get along with, so I am hopeful that I will get

along with my administration in this endeavor. Additionally, I am a hard worker, and I

hope that my administrators will use this to their advantage as they encourage staff in

special education at ELMS to move along the ACOT model and improve their pedagogy

with the use of technology. I will approach the administration with the grants that I apply

for in order to implement and diffuse this innovation. As the old adage says, “Money

speaks.” By seeing that I am fully committed by writing and following through with

applicable grants, my administrators will see that technology access to our smaller

populations can and will be helpful to the ELMS community. As far as Ely’s conditions

go, my new administrators assist me by providing a strong leadership that will expect and

encourage staff participation through their commitment to technological innovation at

ELMS.

● Technology Resource Teacher: The technology resource teacher and I know each other

well and get along very well. We have a mutual respect for each other and are polar

opposites with regard to how we present ourselves and interact with staff. This will work

to our advantage next year in implementing and gaining access to technology that is age

and goal appropriate for each student, as I am easy going by nature with others and

present no threat. On the other hand, she is quick, efficient, and no-nonsense. This is

important, because where I am creative and innovative, she is pragmatic. Some

individuals will gravitate toward her, while others to me. Together, we will present a

united and complete front to the staff during our professional learning sessions. She has
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 10

already agreed to assist me in this endeavor, so I do not have to convince her of the

internship’s efficacy. Furthermore, she is an expert at IPad restoration and sees the

incredible benefits of incorporating it into daily teaching. The tech resource teacher has

already established strong working relationships with the staff at ELMS, so she will be

essential to continuing this as we work with special education staff to move them along

the ACOT model. “A leader who is assertive, committed, self-starting, and flexible

should be chosen for each committee” (Guidebook for Developing an Effective

Technology Plan). Our tech resource teacher is just such a leader at ELMS.

● Co-worker (Regional ALS teacher): Similar with the resource teacher, I am almost

attached at the hip with the other Regional ALS teacher in my program. She has the

younger grade levels, so getting her in on this innovation will be key for its success. She

has actually started the use of IPads more in her room as rewards for her students. The

negative I see in this is the students not being able to adapt with the academic demands

placed on them and it not being for entertainment purposes. The transition time will have

to be coached and mentored through both teachers and paraeducators in the program. I

can only assume that both the other Regional ALS teacher and I will plan to embed

technology in the same ways we had used our planning time before to prep for upcoming

weeks, so the time to plan will not be an issue, in relation to Ely’s time condition.

● Students: By collecting data from students, teachers will be able to tailor the structure of

their classrooms and teaching to more effectively meet students’ needs. This can be both

positive and negative outcomes of the technology innovation. The data and adaptation

will vary from student to student and the baseline data of their goals and objectives will

need to be reflected on daily. We can use as much reflection from the students as we can,
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 11

even if it takes a couple IPads to be thrown in the frustrating process that this will be seen

as in the eyes of the students. They do not adapt to change very well, so overwhelming

them with to high functioning technology will only lead to rejection. We must be careful

in the way we present this to each individual student.

In short, this is the ideal group of stakeholders for an internship to diffuse an innovation

to complete fruition. However, I realize that is not always the case for an internship, as

evidenced by some of the case studies we have viewed in class. In the end, the effectiveness of

an internship can be derailed by the ever-changing needs of staff and students within a given

year. The higher-ups at HCPSS might want for there to be a different focus for the year, too,

such as UbD, a big buzzword in HCPSS this year, as well. All we can do is our best, plan

thoroughly, include well-meaning and reliable parties, and hope for effective and meaningful

technological change to occur.

Plan of Action for Technology Planning:

Here are the steps I will follow to create a technology plan for my internship at ELMS. Ideally, I

will revise these with my stakeholders on the technology committee.

Step 1: Formulate essential questions:

● How can technology impact the small population of the Regional Academic Life Skills

Program at Elkridge Landing Middle School?

● How are iPads used instructionally at ELMS? Have iPads improved instruction? How can

each individual student use the iPads to differ their own independent instruction?
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 12

Step 2: Assess current situation:

● Solicit input from students, faculty, parents / guardians. This may be done easily with Google

form surveys given to students in homerooms, faculty at a staff meeting, and

parents/guardians via school e-alerts and website.

● Review testing data since inception of iPad initiative at ELMS and graph results.

● Compare surveyed data with testing data.

● Research similar projects using iPads in special education and compare research to current

data at ELMS.

Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis based upon current data and published research.

● Effective instruction with iPads in the special education program at ELMS will cause

students and staff to move along the ACOT model from adaptation to appropriation and

invention and improve student performance on their individualized IEP goals and objectives.

Step 4: Formulate a vision based upon the HCPSS vision.

Helping to create a shared vision is an interesting assignment. Essentially, I do this annually with

my staff member in the Regional Program at the onset of school in the fall as we co-create

classroom norms and expectations based upon the school’s vision and mission.

● Once all stakeholders create their vision for technology for special education at ELMS, I

would then have follow-up meetings where we would do some type of carousel, or round-

robin activity comparing and contrasting the language, and thereby the inherent values,

within each version.

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 13

● Once the key values and terms are identified in each sample, the stakeholders would finalize

a technology vision for ELMS with the assistance of the administration.

Elkridge Landing Middle provides appropriate digital devices for all students so that optimal

learning may occur school-wide, thereby bridging the digital divide. The technology committee

at ELMS actively seeks funding for iPad repair and replacement, so that this vision may be

realized. In the next three years, special educators will move up the SAMR and ACOT models

and craft learner-centered lessons that provide opportunities for modification and redefinition of

knowledge, leading to adaptation of new beliefs about teaching and resulting in the invention of

original products and thinking.

Therefore, at ELMS, teachers and support staff will:

● Utilize iPads in daily instruction, predominantly at the modification and redefinition stages;

● Build student-facing pages in Canvas, creating flipped-classroom environments;

● Provide students and care-givers with resources that teach one how to iPads for continued

learning at home.

● Participate in professional learning that focuses on:

o differentiation of instruction using iPads for application use that are student specific

but brainstorming Ipad applications to generally have on each Ipad.

Step 5: Formulate a plan

● Create a shared vision for iPad integration and use by soliciting feedback from all

stakeholders

● Assess current model of iPad implementation

● Revise current model of iPad implementation based upon feedback

TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 14

● Apply for grants for funding of project

Step 6: Implement plan

● Co-create resources for moving all stakeholders along the ACOT model

● Gain access to appropriate technology tools such as iPads, computers, and other applications

to use with the students.

● Staff professional learning activities and resources published in Google Drive for easy access

Step 7: Gather feedback as plan progresses

● Create professional learning calendar with formative assessments for all stakeholders

● Revise learning activities based on results of formative assessments

● Administer summative assessment at end of internship/year of new iPad plan

Step 8: Assess veracity of hypothesis based upon data collected

Step 9: Share results of project- Hoping for this to happen within the next 3 years. Starting data

collection with the current sixth graders to share their growth as eighth graders who used

technology throughout their time in middle school.

In conclusion, I hope for this paper to be a catalyst for a movement that is needed for this

small but important population. The skills that come from technology are ones that should not be

missed because of someone having a disability. The world is going to be all technology one day

and I will do my best to start to prepare my students for that day; starting now!
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 15

References

The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Model- Stages of Concern. (2017).

Retrieved April 18, 2017, from Acotmodel website: https://acotmodel.wikispaces.com/

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

innovations. JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation, 23(2), 1-8.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963

The Evolution of Teachers’ Instructional Beliefs and Practices in High-Access-to-

Technology Classrooms (Report No. 8). (1990). Cupertino, CA: Apple.

Larry, A. (1996). Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan.

In Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan (Vol. 2, pp. 1-

45) [PDF]. Retrieved from

https://moodle.loyola.edu/pluginfile.php/1044030/mod_label/intro/Guidebook.pdf
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PAPER 16

Surry, Daniel W. Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. [Online] Available

http://intro.base.org/docs/diffusion/, February 20, 1997.