TechTalk_4th

26-27 / 42

Ensuring that institutional changes will last beyond
the initial period of novelty-driven energy requires the
development of both internal and external support.
Data must be collected that can illustrate early
success. Outside stakeholders must be convinced
that the initiative has value so that they will work to
sustain it after initial project managers have moved
on to another initiative. Critical to the initial launch
was to document success and impact of the program.
The SAMR survey was administered one year into
the implementation of the one-to-one initiative to
document the changes in faculty technology use. This
data has been used to engender continued support.
We also disseminated numerous media releases
describing the impact that the curriculum changes
were having in P-12 classrooms during our students’
field experiences. Employer feedback regarding
students’ ability to implement technology was also
collected.
Infrastructure changes must also be a part of the long
term sustainability plan. We are reducing costs in
desktop computer replacement due to the elimination
of a traditional computer lab-style classroom that
previously was used to teach technology skills. In
addition, a clerical position was eliminated in our IRTC
to support the hiring of a new instructional technology
coordinator. This person will be able to support
ongoing professional development for students and
faculty. Grant and foundation funding are being
explored to address hardware deficiencies that have
been identified in the past year. We also launched
a capital campaign to purchase new BYOD work
stations in the center. The rental model also supports
the sustainability of the project by facilitating device
updates every two years. This enables us to have the
flexibility to adapt to evolving technology. Classroom
infrastructure will continue to require updates
related to new technologies, since both software and
hardware rapidly evolve (Amirault, 2015). Peripherals
must also be purchased to demonstrate best practice.
Examples of such tools include sleeves that transform
a device into a microscope, three dimensional
imagery tools, and tripods that allow the camera to
follow a teacher in the classroom.
The start-up challenges of a new project are
now being replaced by those tasks associated
with building and maintaining long-term change.
Contentment with daily, incremental improvements
must now suffice in place of the passionate
enthusiasm of the novel. Structural supports related
to physical infrastructure, device distribution, and
professional development are now in place, but they
must receive adequate attention in order for us to
build upon the work done so far. The continuation of
our EDvolution® also depends upon the strength of
the stakeholder relationships that enabled us to begin
the project. Although it is often more difficult to excite
faculty, students, and university administrators about
a project that is, by the standards of higher education,
nearing middle-age, the initiative will not last without
their continued support.
In addition, we need to focus more attention on
assessing the value of EDvolution®. The initiative
was built upon a sound theoretical and philosophical
framework, but that does not guarantee that it will
result in our meeting the identified goals. We have
considerable anecdotal evidence of altered classroom
practice and innovative student use of iPads. We have
also received some positive feedback from school
administrators. Building upon this initial informal
data, we are currently developing more systematic
quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluating
the success of the project.
Certainly the rollout of our one-to-one initiative
has not proceeded without problems, but we have
managed to avoid several potential roadblocks by
attending to the six key areas we identified in the
introduction: 1) clear, justifiable goals; 2) attention
to key decisions, 3) the development of stakeholder
investment, 4) adequate training, 5) building
appropriate infrastructure, and 6) a concern for
sustainability. The presence of these target areas
helped us to maintain focus and ensured that we did
not overlook (for the most part) important issues that
might undermine the success of the project.
As the name suggests, EDvolution® has required
a level of effort and planning commensurate with
starting a minor revolution. Our aim was not simply
to add a new tool to the instructional process, but,
instead, to fundamentally alter that process in our
college. Believing that a more collaborative model
that enhanced connections between students, faculty,
and worldwide sources of information would increase
student learning, we set about to use emerging
A CONCERN FOR SUSTAINABILITY
CONCLUSION
technology to build that model. Not only did we
perceive a value for our teacher candidates’
immediate learning, but evidence suggested that our
one-to-one initiative would also better prepare those
novice educators to meet the needs of students in
their future classrooms.
REFERENCES
Amirault, R. J. (2015). Technology transience and the
challenges it poses to higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 16(2), 1-18.
Arkansas State University. (2014). iPad initiative FAQ - ASU IT
Store - Arkansas State University. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to
work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and
applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century work force. Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, Washington, D. C. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
http://files .eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf
Mitchell, R. G. (2011). Planning for instructional technology in
the classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(154), 45-
52. doi:10.1002/cc.445
Longenecker, C. O., Papp, G., & Stansfield, T. C. (2006).
Characteristics of successful improvement initiatives. Industrial
Management, 48(5).
Microsoft. (2009). Windows Library - TechNet - Microsoft.
Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
Higher Learning Commission. (2015). The criteria for
accreditation and core components. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
Mitchell, R. G. (2011). Planning for instructional technology in
the classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(154), 45-
52. doi: 10.1002/cc445
FRIDLEY & ROGERS / DOI: 10.5929/2015.5.2.5 Page 50
Mueller, J. L., Wood, E., De Pasquale, D., & Cruikshank, R.
(2012). Examining mobile technology in higher education: Handheld
devices in and out of the classroom. International Journal of Higher
Education, 1(2), 43.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015).
The CAEP standards. Retrieved July 18, 2015, from
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). Job
outlook: The candidate skills/qualities employers want, the influence of
attributes. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
NEA (2013). Profession ready teachers: NEA policy brief.
Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
Profession-Ready-Teachers.pdf. Pew Research Center,
Pew Research Center. (2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Retrieved
August 14, 2015, from
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model
as a framework for evaluating mlearning. Online Learning, 18(2).
Southeast Missouri State University. (2015). FAQs.
Retrieved August 13, 2015, from http://semo .edu/it/ipadinitiative/
FAQiPadAllMajors.pdf.
Winona State University (2015). Mobile Device Agreement -
Winona State University. Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
.
ABOUT AUTHORS
Daryl Fridley, Ph.D.
serves as Associate Professor, Associate
Dean of the College of Education, and
Institutional Director of Assessment
at Southeast Missouri State University.
He has written and presented on issues
surrounding social studies education,
specifically, and teacher education,
generally.
Diana Rogers-Adkinson,
Ph.D. )
is a Professor and Dean of the College
of Education, Southeast Missouri State
University. She has presented and writ-
ten extensively in the areas of language
interactions with children with emotion-
al disorders, issues related to Hispanic
children with disabilities, and other
topics specific to cultural interactions in
disability conditions.
26 27