I enjoyed this class for the opportunities it gave me to glimpse into the experiences shared through each classmate’s blog. I have learned from reading the stories related to each week’s topic.
I have a broader perspective about using technology as a tool in any educational setting. It has also helped me understand there are many variables that influence the level of technology implemented in a classroom. The level of implementation will depend on the imagination, creativity, tenacity and perseverance of the teacher willing to do it. The amount of technology available is not as important as the amount of experience and willingness to experiment and use it to benefit all involved.
One of the most interesting things I realized was that regardless of what name we give it, just about everyone has had an experience with the Ed Norman Syndrome. The personal development anecdotes were very insightful as well, but what I saw was that everyone learns something at any training session, even if it is a mental note not to repeat the same mistake if they are ever in charge of a professional development plan.
Indeed this course has given me a different perspective of technology in the classroom.
I believe learning has occurred, thanks to all of you.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
Session 9
Session 9 – Professional Development
I have heard many times the same phrase Dr. Newberry mentioned on the podcast “…not another training session…” Unfortunately this is the common reaction when a training session is done only to fulfill a requirement rather than to address a need. In one accession three of my coworkers and myself were told on a Friday we had to go to a training session starting the following Tuesday for the duration of 3 days. We immediately said no because we had too many things pending for the week to include several meetings already set up weeks in advance. The answer from the boss was clear and left no doubt we had to attend. The training had been set up off site. There was no possibility of cancellation without loosing the money already paid for the training. We did what we could the following Monday to rearrange everybody’s schedule. We attended the three day training session. We never used the skills learned and we forgot them soon after.
On another occasion there were a few seats available for a training session that was needed to learn a new program that was to be implemented in the new fiscal year. Many people applied for it. The seats were not enough and two more sessions were added. Everyone liked the training. All the knowledge learned was applied when the new program was implemented. The departments had an easy time changing from the old program to the new.
What I like to see implemented with professional development training is participation of people who are actually doing the work, not just the administrators. Many times decisions on professional development implementation are done from the point of view of someone in a high position who is being given a sales pitch and who has never done the particular job a new technology is projected to perform or help with. More input from the people in the field who know the intricacies of the job, what works well in practice and what looks good only on paper. This input needs to be sincere, knowledgeable and taken in consideration when deciding what type of professional development to schedule.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 9 mp3
- Post response items
- Post projects
- Read classmates’ blog postings
- Post comments on classmates’ blogs
I have heard many times the same phrase Dr. Newberry mentioned on the podcast “…not another training session…” Unfortunately this is the common reaction when a training session is done only to fulfill a requirement rather than to address a need. In one accession three of my coworkers and myself were told on a Friday we had to go to a training session starting the following Tuesday for the duration of 3 days. We immediately said no because we had too many things pending for the week to include several meetings already set up weeks in advance. The answer from the boss was clear and left no doubt we had to attend. The training had been set up off site. There was no possibility of cancellation without loosing the money already paid for the training. We did what we could the following Monday to rearrange everybody’s schedule. We attended the three day training session. We never used the skills learned and we forgot them soon after.
On another occasion there were a few seats available for a training session that was needed to learn a new program that was to be implemented in the new fiscal year. Many people applied for it. The seats were not enough and two more sessions were added. Everyone liked the training. All the knowledge learned was applied when the new program was implemented. The departments had an easy time changing from the old program to the new.
What I like to see implemented with professional development training is participation of people who are actually doing the work, not just the administrators. Many times decisions on professional development implementation are done from the point of view of someone in a high position who is being given a sales pitch and who has never done the particular job a new technology is projected to perform or help with. More input from the people in the field who know the intricacies of the job, what works well in practice and what looks good only on paper. This input needs to be sincere, knowledgeable and taken in consideration when deciding what type of professional development to schedule.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 9 mp3
- Post response items
- Post projects
- Read classmates’ blog postings
- Post comments on classmates’ blogs
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Session 8
I like to collect data on many aspects of my daily life, at work and at home. I believe that data will give a snapshot of a particular subject and help look at the big picture. Making informed decisions based on facts is important. In my job many decisions are made by looking at performance indexes. For example, some promotions are based on what we call “cutting score.” This is a composite number of performance on several activities such as the rifle range, physical fitness test, education courses, etc… This score, is compared to the minimum score projected for promotion for a particular occupation specialty, and if met along with time in grade, a promotion is granted. I believe this is a good way to do promotions. It is based on performance points that are taken from individual efforts making it a very personal score.
Higher promotions take in consideration a fitness report. This report is an assessment of leadership qualities. It is intended to present a fair and balanced word picture of the person up for promotion. This adds a variable into the equation. Many times the “painted” word picture will depend on the writing ability of the person submitting the fitness report. The result sometimes can be deceiving.
When a methodic study is done, variables are identified and attempted to be controlled to make the study more valid. This is a scientific approach; unfortunately, controlling variables is not always possible outside a scientific study. Therefore the data driven decision making can be skewed due to the human element and life. When decisions are made purely looking at numbers without taking in consideration the extenuating circumstances, wrong decisions can follow. Care, objectivity and knowledge about the subject must be a part of the person interpreting the results.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 8 mp3
- Post response items
- Continue working on projects
- Read classmates’ blog postings
- Post comments on classmates’ blogs
Higher promotions take in consideration a fitness report. This report is an assessment of leadership qualities. It is intended to present a fair and balanced word picture of the person up for promotion. This adds a variable into the equation. Many times the “painted” word picture will depend on the writing ability of the person submitting the fitness report. The result sometimes can be deceiving.
When a methodic study is done, variables are identified and attempted to be controlled to make the study more valid. This is a scientific approach; unfortunately, controlling variables is not always possible outside a scientific study. Therefore the data driven decision making can be skewed due to the human element and life. When decisions are made purely looking at numbers without taking in consideration the extenuating circumstances, wrong decisions can follow. Care, objectivity and knowledge about the subject must be a part of the person interpreting the results.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 8 mp3
- Post response items
- Continue working on projects
- Read classmates’ blog postings
- Post comments on classmates’ blogs
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Session 7
Ed Norman Syndrome
Standardization is normally a great thing for efficiency. This was one of the reasons to outsource the operation and maintenance of our network, hardware and software to a civilian company. The standardization was supposed to level the field for every one and be able to bring up to par the technology available throughout the Marine Corps. However, reality happened. Every unit does not work the same. The implementation of the contract was put in place and units began changing to the new network, but now they did not have all the software programs they need to do their job. The process to run newly identified software in the new network was a lengthy one. The unit had to submit a request for service (RFS) and give a copy of the software and licensing proof to be tested as well as a military side Subject Matter Expert (SME) to participate in the testing. Test of the software had to be done in a lab to make sure that a particular software combination would not harm the already running network. This process took more than six months. This issue became very problematic. The old network, now called “legacy” network, was kept to run parallel to the new network to ensure those units could function.
When the outsourcing contract was signed, a software survey was done. Unfortunately, not everything was identified. Now we had to deal with the transition and run double networks until the transition was complete. At that time, I was in charge of the transition for one of our bases. The civilian representative for the company on my base and I, got together to figure what to do about the software applications coming up now. We worked out a one time deal. The military was going to collect all the applications not previously identified and put a deadline to have this done by. On their part, the civilian company would put a testing lab on our base and streamline all the applications identified by the deadline. This process would be done in approximately 30 days after the deadline.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 7 mp3
- Post response items
- Continue Working on Projects
- Read classmates blog postings
- Post comments on classmates blogs
Standardization is normally a great thing for efficiency. This was one of the reasons to outsource the operation and maintenance of our network, hardware and software to a civilian company. The standardization was supposed to level the field for every one and be able to bring up to par the technology available throughout the Marine Corps. However, reality happened. Every unit does not work the same. The implementation of the contract was put in place and units began changing to the new network, but now they did not have all the software programs they need to do their job. The process to run newly identified software in the new network was a lengthy one. The unit had to submit a request for service (RFS) and give a copy of the software and licensing proof to be tested as well as a military side Subject Matter Expert (SME) to participate in the testing. Test of the software had to be done in a lab to make sure that a particular software combination would not harm the already running network. This process took more than six months. This issue became very problematic. The old network, now called “legacy” network, was kept to run parallel to the new network to ensure those units could function.
When the outsourcing contract was signed, a software survey was done. Unfortunately, not everything was identified. Now we had to deal with the transition and run double networks until the transition was complete. At that time, I was in charge of the transition for one of our bases. The civilian representative for the company on my base and I, got together to figure what to do about the software applications coming up now. We worked out a one time deal. The military was going to collect all the applications not previously identified and put a deadline to have this done by. On their part, the civilian company would put a testing lab on our base and streamline all the applications identified by the deadline. This process would be done in approximately 30 days after the deadline.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 7 mp3
- Post response items
- Continue Working on Projects
- Read classmates blog postings
- Post comments on classmates blogs
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Session 6
What common barriers to technology integration do you hear or see in your area?
In my line of work the main barrier to technology integration is money and bureaucracy of paper work to request anything not foreseen in advanced. The military budget usually allocates funds two years in advance. Major commands have to budget for many things. The subordinate commands have to deal with money given to them quarterly. Every section in the unit needs money to function. There are not much discretionary funds. Technology changes and upgrades very fast, the money and the paperwork do not catch up so fast.
Another barrier I hear about a lot is time. I believe this is a universal complain. But when I hear or give this reason myself I remember someone saying “Did you sleep? Then you had time.” The operation tempo of many military units is extreme to say the least. One has to be very creative to find the time to implement a new technology en mass.
Which are actual barriers and which are proxy or stand in for something else?
I will have to say that both time and money barriers are very real.
Actual barriers, what would you do to solve or get over the barriers so that technology is used more effectively in your location?
Leadership, creativity and perseverance are key elements for overcoming most barriers. Leadership at all levels is very important. In this case however, technology issues have to be important for the people in top leadership roles so they can make it a priority for all. Creativity is required of the implementers to make the best with the resources available. Perseverance is the quality to stay the course identifying and projecting future needs, coupling them with the tedious paperwork that goes with it.
Weekly Log
-Download and listen to Session 6 MP3
-Formulate Session 6 response
-Continue working on projects due
-Read classmates blogs
-Posts comments on classmates blogs
In my line of work the main barrier to technology integration is money and bureaucracy of paper work to request anything not foreseen in advanced. The military budget usually allocates funds two years in advance. Major commands have to budget for many things. The subordinate commands have to deal with money given to them quarterly. Every section in the unit needs money to function. There are not much discretionary funds. Technology changes and upgrades very fast, the money and the paperwork do not catch up so fast.
Another barrier I hear about a lot is time. I believe this is a universal complain. But when I hear or give this reason myself I remember someone saying “Did you sleep? Then you had time.” The operation tempo of many military units is extreme to say the least. One has to be very creative to find the time to implement a new technology en mass.
Which are actual barriers and which are proxy or stand in for something else?
I will have to say that both time and money barriers are very real.
Actual barriers, what would you do to solve or get over the barriers so that technology is used more effectively in your location?
Leadership, creativity and perseverance are key elements for overcoming most barriers. Leadership at all levels is very important. In this case however, technology issues have to be important for the people in top leadership roles so they can make it a priority for all. Creativity is required of the implementers to make the best with the resources available. Perseverance is the quality to stay the course identifying and projecting future needs, coupling them with the tedious paperwork that goes with it.
Weekly Log
-Download and listen to Session 6 MP3
-Formulate Session 6 response
-Continue working on projects due
-Read classmates blogs
-Posts comments on classmates blogs
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Session 5
Best Practices
There are many ways to integrate technology in an educational setting. The ways to integrate it are almost as diverse as the ways to establish a best practice. Technology is all around us. It takes a technologically literate person to recognize technology not just for what it is, but for the infinite uses it can have when it is coupled with a little creativity and imagination. But for as many diverse practices as there are, I have to say that I like one of the most basic ones. I like power point presentations. It is simple software with great flexibility.
I was introduced to Microsoft Power Point by way of conferences and meetings a few years back. The first uses of power point presentations that I witnessed were simple slides with bullets and paragraphs. When it was my turn to show the logistics for our next operation in the desert, I decided to try to accomplish it with a power point presentation. I borrowed the software and began playing with it. My first presentation was very basic. It took a few more presentations and experimenting with it to get the automation, sound, and animation features to be integrated smoothly into the conferences. I believe power point is one of the most used, even sometimes abused, software programs. It is easy to learn. Still pictures and animation give it a visual attractiveness that can aid in keeping the audience engaged and interested. Some people have not used this program because they have not taken the time to learn it, others feel it is boring. Just like with any other technology, the situation and individual will dictate the best practice to follow.
Weekly Log
-Download and listen to Session 5 MP3
-Formulate session 5 response
-Continue working on projects due
-Read classmates blogs
-Post comments on classmates blogs
There are many ways to integrate technology in an educational setting. The ways to integrate it are almost as diverse as the ways to establish a best practice. Technology is all around us. It takes a technologically literate person to recognize technology not just for what it is, but for the infinite uses it can have when it is coupled with a little creativity and imagination. But for as many diverse practices as there are, I have to say that I like one of the most basic ones. I like power point presentations. It is simple software with great flexibility.
I was introduced to Microsoft Power Point by way of conferences and meetings a few years back. The first uses of power point presentations that I witnessed were simple slides with bullets and paragraphs. When it was my turn to show the logistics for our next operation in the desert, I decided to try to accomplish it with a power point presentation. I borrowed the software and began playing with it. My first presentation was very basic. It took a few more presentations and experimenting with it to get the automation, sound, and animation features to be integrated smoothly into the conferences. I believe power point is one of the most used, even sometimes abused, software programs. It is easy to learn. Still pictures and animation give it a visual attractiveness that can aid in keeping the audience engaged and interested. Some people have not used this program because they have not taken the time to learn it, others feel it is boring. Just like with any other technology, the situation and individual will dictate the best practice to follow.
Weekly Log
-Download and listen to Session 5 MP3
-Formulate session 5 response
-Continue working on projects due
-Read classmates blogs
-Post comments on classmates blogs
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Session 4
Diffusion of Innovation
Americans are at different stages when it comes to the level of comfort in using technology, it also holds true when it comes to the diffusion of technology in an organization. I find Rogers’ 5 categories of individual’s willingness to adapt technology highly applicable to any organization. Technology literacy’s level depends on the society and era in which the context is found.
I have to say that I place myself in different categories at different times. I like to find myself in the innovators’ category. I look at the possibilities that different avenues of approach can produce. If there is technology available that can help my department improve its efficiency, I am the first one to want to try and incorporate it. Unfortunately, sometimes the lack of budgetary funds will prevent me from having the luxury of being adventurous, or even being one of the early adaptors, having to settle for the early majority group. However, the category I identify with the most in my professional life is the early adaptors.
For example, in an assignment I found myself a few years back as my squadron’s transportation chief, the runsheet assignment, a logistics table of vehicles, cargo and drivers needed daily for the function of the squadron, was being done by hand. The runsheet would be delivered to us at the motor pool by 3 P.M., where assignments of drivers, vehicles and time for the runs were done. Numerous updates were called in between 3 P.M. and close of business. Information on the runsheet had to be erased and updated several times during this period. Sometimes the runsheet was rendered illegible. When this happened, a duplicate had to be made from scratch. This process would take time and resources away from the dispatcher’s office which coordinated all the runs. The licensing office, which conducted vehicle upgrade classes, sometimes had to wait until the last minute to plan their classes after the runsheet was finished Fridays to be able to predict the number of vehicles available the following week. Time and resources were substantially being wasted. After observing this process, I went home and sat down to think what we could do to improve it. I decided to use my home computer and make a table including all the fields necessary to accommodate the runsheert. Finally, after some adjustments, a very workable runsheet was available. I proposed my new sheet to my boss who was clearly a ‘late majority” category, slightly resistant to change. He was cautious; other things had been tried before that had not worked. We assigned a computer to the dispatcher’s office and the training section. I instructed the sections on the program and the manipulation of the table. After the sections got used to it, efficiency increased. Runsheets did not have to be redone, changes in times and vehicle type were done at the touch of a button. There was need for only one person to do the runsheet where before we needed three. Most importantly, the training section was able to derive a database that showed at a glance vehicle numbers and types available for their classes. After a little time, they were able to schedule classes well in advance.
In this situation, we did not need a sophisticated infusion of technology. A simple integration of a software program coupled with early adapter’s perspective improved the functionality of several departments.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 4 mp3
- Post response items
- Begin working on lesson plan for project 1
- Read classmates blog postings
- Post comments on classmates blogs
Americans are at different stages when it comes to the level of comfort in using technology, it also holds true when it comes to the diffusion of technology in an organization. I find Rogers’ 5 categories of individual’s willingness to adapt technology highly applicable to any organization. Technology literacy’s level depends on the society and era in which the context is found.
I have to say that I place myself in different categories at different times. I like to find myself in the innovators’ category. I look at the possibilities that different avenues of approach can produce. If there is technology available that can help my department improve its efficiency, I am the first one to want to try and incorporate it. Unfortunately, sometimes the lack of budgetary funds will prevent me from having the luxury of being adventurous, or even being one of the early adaptors, having to settle for the early majority group. However, the category I identify with the most in my professional life is the early adaptors.
For example, in an assignment I found myself a few years back as my squadron’s transportation chief, the runsheet assignment, a logistics table of vehicles, cargo and drivers needed daily for the function of the squadron, was being done by hand. The runsheet would be delivered to us at the motor pool by 3 P.M., where assignments of drivers, vehicles and time for the runs were done. Numerous updates were called in between 3 P.M. and close of business. Information on the runsheet had to be erased and updated several times during this period. Sometimes the runsheet was rendered illegible. When this happened, a duplicate had to be made from scratch. This process would take time and resources away from the dispatcher’s office which coordinated all the runs. The licensing office, which conducted vehicle upgrade classes, sometimes had to wait until the last minute to plan their classes after the runsheet was finished Fridays to be able to predict the number of vehicles available the following week. Time and resources were substantially being wasted. After observing this process, I went home and sat down to think what we could do to improve it. I decided to use my home computer and make a table including all the fields necessary to accommodate the runsheert. Finally, after some adjustments, a very workable runsheet was available. I proposed my new sheet to my boss who was clearly a ‘late majority” category, slightly resistant to change. He was cautious; other things had been tried before that had not worked. We assigned a computer to the dispatcher’s office and the training section. I instructed the sections on the program and the manipulation of the table. After the sections got used to it, efficiency increased. Runsheets did not have to be redone, changes in times and vehicle type were done at the touch of a button. There was need for only one person to do the runsheet where before we needed three. Most importantly, the training section was able to derive a database that showed at a glance vehicle numbers and types available for their classes. After a little time, they were able to schedule classes well in advance.
In this situation, we did not need a sophisticated infusion of technology. A simple integration of a software program coupled with early adapter’s perspective improved the functionality of several departments.
Weekly Log
- Download and listen to Session 4 mp3
- Post response items
- Begin working on lesson plan for project 1
- Read classmates blog postings
- Post comments on classmates blogs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
