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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
2/17
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
3/17
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
4/17
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
5/17
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
6/17
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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:
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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:
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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.
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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:
8/7/2019 Frit Tech plan eval
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.
Top Related