Frit Tech plan eval

8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval

1/17

Melissa MerrittFall 2008Technololgy Plan Evaluation

Evaluation of:

Georgia Southern University

LEVEL II University Implementation Plan

TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES PLAN

Revised by the Presidents Cabinet in Cooperation with the Strategic Planning Council

Fall 2004


2/17


3/17


4/17


5/17


6/17


7/17

In the fall of 2004, Georgia Southern University created a Technology Plan in an attempt to improve the overall learning

experience of students and to grow the university by attracting more students. The plan is very vague. It serves more as a hand drawn

map to the future than an atlas. Various aspects of technological implementation are mentioned, but they are not very specific. Rather

than saying we have X amount of computers and we need Y more, the plan says to take an inventory of the technology here. Rather

than detailing a plan for staff development, technology infrastructure, and technical support, the plan simply acknowledges the need for

these things and calls for this to be done at a later time.

The nature of the document being that it is so vague and ambiguous, one would assume that it is relatively easy to follow the plan.

Basically, the makers of this plan created to do lists for someone else. I am in a unique position to judge whether or not the plan is being

implemented because I have been affiliated with Georgia Southern since 2002. I received my undergraduate degree, my Masters degree,

and I now teach in the history department. I witnessed the building and opening of the IT building. I can whole heartedly say that I

have seen so many improvements in the time that I have been here. Access to computers and technology in the library has expanded.

The computers in the classrooms I have used are top of the line. The monitors have touch screens. We have nice projectors with all

sorts of capabilities to display a computer screen, copy from books, DVDs, etc. I have a brand new computer in my office. I am aware

of a myriad of different types of software I can ask to be placed on my computer. I have been a part of trainings in the Center for

Excellence in Teaching that focus on technological training. I believe that Georgia Southern is making a solid effort to follow through

with their technology plan.

Analysis Rubric Explanation:


8/17

Broad based support contributions (administrators, teachers, students, community, and staff):

2 out of 5

The last page has a list of people who contributed to the plan. However, there is no indication of who these people

are or what their qualifications are. There is no indication of who did the bulk of the work either. I would list the

credentials of each person. I would also indicate who contributed what to the plan.

Broad based support process:

1 out of 5

There is little mentioned of who is supposed to facilitate the process of technology implementation. Certain positions

are listed, but in conjunction with others. It is hard to know who is supposed to be responsible for which aspect of the

proposed task. I think that specific names should be listed so that people will know what they are responsible for doing and

so that they can be held accountable.

Needs assessment breadth:


9/17

1 out of 5

The document really does not list specific needs. It makes very vague, general comments about what is to be done.

There is no mention of x amount of computers being possessed or needed. There is no reference to specific software needs. I

think an inventory should have taken place to determine what types of resources were available and then what type of resources

were still needed.

Needs assessment depth:

1 out of 5

There are very few specific needs listed in the document. The needs are very broad and any need that is listed is

not usually followed by any plan on how to address that need. This goes back to the inventory that should have been done.

If the university knew what it already had, then it could more easily determine what it needs.

Needs assessment equipment:

1 out of 5

The document makes no mission of what technology the university already has or what types of new technology

will be needed in order to implement the use of more technology at the university. This relates to the previous two areas.

Mission and/or Vision:

5 out of 5


10/17

Page two of the document lists a mission that addresses the fact that technological innovation has a huge

impact on things within the university, all of which are not related directly to technology. Technology supports effective

teaching practices, administrative practices; it facilitates learning, and contributes to academic distinction. I cannot really

think of anything to change here. I think the university has a pretty good idea of the importance of technology and how it

relates to the process of learning.

Goals and Objectives:

1 out of 5

General learning goals connected to the implementation of new technology were not included. Vague plans were

addressed, for example refine planning related to acquisition and use of information resources at Henderson Library.

This was not linked to a certain learning outcome. It was simply listed as a vague plan that needs further development. I would

like to have seen more specific goals. For example, they could have listed specific things to be acquired and used in the library.

They could have addressed the impact these things would have had.

Action Plans with Timelines, Responsibilities and Budget:

2 out of 5

Each individual goal that is listed does have an action plan that says a certain thing needs to be done. There is


11/17

usually a timeframe listed, but often the plan is contingent upon some other vague thing occurring first. There is no mention of

anything to do with budgets or funding the technology. The overall plan leaves a lot to be desired. Plans for funding should be

listed within the strategy. The school probably gets a certain amount of money from the government for technology and then they

charge technology fees as well. This should be addressed.

Program Integration:

2 out of 5

The technology plan does make reference to a broader strategic plan developed by Georgia Southern, but it does not make

explicit connections to the other document or talk about how the two plans complement each other. The technology plan should

incorporate more from the strategic plan to illustrate how the technology plan affects more than just technology itself.

Curriculum Integration:

1 out of 5

The document is very vague in this area. The plan states a goal with little mentioned about how to accomplish it


12/17

or how to fund it. It does not list any kind of indication as to how the technology would be integrated into the curriculum or how

the success of the integration would be measured. There is no accountability for the changes being proposed. The goals

addressed should be more specific and detailed. The goals should be linked to a specific educational outcome. There should be

some kind of a rubric made to judge the effectiveness of the changes.

Evaluation:

2 out of 5

Each tactic listed has a measure of progress box. Once again, this information is very general and not very specific.

For example, for many of the tactics, approval of the plan is listed as the measure of progress. One cannot assume that a plan is

effective simply because it has been approved. A rubric should be created for each tactic listed. This way the effectiveness of the

changes can be measured.

Multi year Planning:

3 out of 5


13/17

The plan does address future needs. Most of the plans listed are labeled as ongoing. Some of them are reviewed

annually. The plan does make allowances for many years to come. It could be a little more specific though in some of the

ongoing boxes. Dates could be listed by which time certain things needed to be accomplished.

Standards:

1 out of 5

This plan does not address equipment or software needs at all. There is no mention of any brand names.

Once again, the plan is very vague. The plan should list specific types of software that they already own and then create a list of

new software that they hope to obtain.

Funding Alternatives:

1 out of 5

Funding sources are not mentioned at all in this document. Outside funding sources should be considered in case of

cutbacks. For example, this year the school had to give back a certain amount of its budget to the state.

School pilot projects (research and development):

1 out of 5


14/17

The plan does not mention school pilot projects pertaining to research and development. New research and development

projects should be created. New technologies can allow for this type of research and also can help attract students to the school.

Educational Research:

1 out of 5

There is not mention made of education research. The document mainly lists services that need to be performed within the

university. Educational research needs to be done to determine what types of needs should be met with new forms of technology.

Model Classroom Configurations:

2 out of 5

The need for computers and other types of technology within the classroom are mentioned, but specific numbers are not

listed. An inventory needs to be done to see what the school has to work with. Then the planners need to determine a certain

amount of computers that each classroom should have.

Facilities (Electricity, Security, etc.):

2 out of 5


15/17

The plan does mention that some modifications need to be made to the technological infrastructure, but a specific plan of

action is not detailed. A study should be done to find out what technological infrastructure does exist and what needs to be added.

Maintenance and Support:

2 out of 5

Plans for support are mentioned, but they are not clear or very detailed at all. A qualified support team should be hired of

developed as part of this plan.

Software Agreements (site licensing, etc.)

1 out of 5

There is not any mention at all in this document about certain types of software being needed or used. An inventory needs

to be done to determine what software exists. Educational research needs to be done as well to determine what types of software

are needed.

Copyright and Acceptable Use Policy:

1 out of 5

The document does not mention anything about copy right or an acceptable use policy. The law pertaining to copy rights

should probably be included.


16/17

Gifts and Disposal:

1 out of 5

The plan does not list a policy regarding gifts of equipment and services. A plan should be put in place to address these

needs. If gifts are given, this could provide funding for other programs. Also, once certain technologies are no longer needed by

GSU, they might still be viable for other members of the community. If GSU donated old computers, etc, that could continue to

foster a positive relationship with the community at large.

Staff Development:

2 out of 5

The plan does mention the necessity for staff development. However, the plan does not mention who is responsible for

this, how it will be funded, or what this type of staff development will look like. Staff development is very important to this plan.

If educators and students do not know how to use the technology, then there is no point in even having it to begin with. I know

from experience that the Center for Excellence in Teaching does have really excellent staff development programs, but this should

be mentioned in the document itself.

Summary:


17/17

Because I work at Georgia Southern and attended the college for over five years, I believe that we have a pretty good technology

program here. I feel that as a student and as an instructor I have had access to the things that I needed. However, the actual technology

plan created by the university is very vague and non-specific. It needs a huge over haul. The university clearly gets the idea that

technology is important and the administrators understand that learning and growth is tied very closely with the integration of more

technology. I think that overall, Georgia Southern University is a wonderful institution that utilizes technology well. However, the

makers of this plan did not take the time to inventory what already existed and see what else was needed. The planners very vaguely

made connections between curriculum and technology. There was little mentioned of staff development or funding. There was also not

much mentioned about holding the plan accountable. The plan is a start, but it needs a lot of work to be more viable in todays ever

changing technological world.

Documents

Frit Tech plan eval