eLearning for Teachers:

A Professional Development Program

Amy Jane Priest

University of Colorado-Denver
Priest eLearning Proposal 1

Organizational Need for Change

ELearning is an approach to learning that uses technology to achieve and enhance
learning. The lack of time and resources in the Montrose County School District to train
educators on how to utilize instructional technology is a challenge. One solution would be the
implementation of a self-paced, blended learning course designed for educators. As an ongoing
professional development program, teachers could experience existing technologies and then
integrate them into their instructional practices.

The district has adopted the professional learning community, PLC, as a model, to
ensure that students learn through a collaborative culture focused on results (DuFour, 2004).
DuFour’s (2004) concept “requires the school staff to focus on learning rather than teaching,
work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the kind of
results that fuel continual improvement” (p.11). This eLearning proposal would fulfill those goals
by requiring educators to learn about technology tools, collaborating to apply the information
learned in their course in order to increase overall student achievement. I would propose piloting
this eLearning solution at Centennial Middle School, because this school setting and context
would be effective for an eLearning solution.

Setting and Context

The administrators at Centennial Middle School have a history of supporting the use of
technology for learning. The former principal motivated staff to embrace change and now
oversees technology for the district. The current principal has continued this vision, primarily
placing emphasis on enhancing instruction and looking at systemic improvement. She sees
“pockets of teachers who are doing whatever it takes to ensure student learning, moving
forward, and being interested in growing” (N. Alex, personal communication, October 26, 2009).
An instructional leadership team, composed of teachers who have an interest in continuous
improvement, is already in place. One member of this instructional leadership team, the
instructional media librarian, is working diligently to build relationships with staff and is helping
them to integrate technology into their teaching. According to the administration, her work is
receiving a positive response. At least half of the staff could be described as ”digital natives,”
already familiar with many of the benefits of technology. Although seemingly frustrated by the
lack of equipment and software to make technology integration easier, many teachers have
expressed a desire to use technology more effectively.

Purpose and Rationale

ELearning’s purpose in the Montrose County School District has yet to be defined. The
superintendent states on the district’s website that “using technology as a tool to gather,
process and present information is fast becoming a requirement in today's world” (Voorhis, n.d.).
Technology, however, is more than just an informational tool. According to Dr. Bassoppo-Moyo
(2006):

In creating a vision statement for eLearning, one should envisage a learning

environment where the use of information and communications technology is regarded
as an integral part of the target population's everyday practices and educational
administration. The vision statement should acknowledge the potential of eLearning to
impact on learning outcomes for all students and the work habits of all staff. (p. 12)
Priest eLearning Proposal 2

The school board and accreditation goal concerning technology is to maintain and
incorporate relevant technology to meet district standards and goals. This can be interpreted as
the district’s only vision statement regarding technology. This vision is extremely limited, and the
potential for eLearning in the district has yet to be realized. Technology has value in the district,
but it currently is not a significant part of instructional practices. According to the curriculum
philosophy, though, “technology is an integral component in our instructional practices”
(Montrose County School District [MCSD], 2009, p.7). Interestingly, an analysis of the
curriculum and instruction budget over the last five years shows that the assessment budget
has increased 28% while the technology budget has decreased 23% (MCSD, 2009). Of course,
some of the funding for these programs come from Title funds, but the staff development budget
for this school year is 10% of the assessment budget and only 3% of the technology budget, a
mere $4,900 for the entire district of 850 employees (MCSD, 2009). The amount of money
budgeted for staff development in the current school year is $5.76 per employee.

If funding is an indicator of where the district places value, then there is a gap.
Technology has been mostly used in the district for data collection and assessment. The same
efforts to move the district forward in using informational technology should now be applied to
create a sustainable model for staff development. Jones et al. (1995) said, “Schools cannot
invest in technologies alone. They must also invest in ongoing professional development,
training and support services” (p.45). Now is the time to invest in teachers, as they can directly
broaden the district’s mission.

The district’s mission statement is in partnership with our parents and communities, our
mission is that all students will learn at their optimal level. Specifically, the mission statement of
Centennial Middle School is Centennial Middle School will inspire its students to be life long
learners through positive relationships, professional commitment, and a dedication to
excellence. The goal statement is Never Quit! The difference between ordinary and
extraordinary…is that little extra!

If the district wants students to learn at their optimal level and Centennial specifically
wants to inspire its students to be life long learners, an eLearning initiative focused on
professional development for teachers would shift the district focus from using technology for
information to using it for instruction. By modeling their own learning for students, instructors
could have a major impact on student achievement.

Advantages and Disadvantages

An effectively designed and implemented elearning program would have several
advantages. According to Kozloski (2006), “Technology is now ingrained in our
society…schools need to use it with students as an integrated tool to help enhance the bottom
line in education, increased student achievement (p.5). Helping to expand the district’s mission,
at the heart of this proposal is raising student achievement.

Choosing an eLearning approach can be extremely cost effective. The budget in this
proposal is mostly for the design and planning phases in the first year, but the budget would
decrease considerably in the second year, especially if the program were implemented as part
of the contractual professional learning community, PLC, meetings.

ELearning offers choices that can deliver learning to many people in a relatively short
time period. ELearning can incorporate multimedia, adapting to different learning styles, among
Priest eLearning Proposal 3

adult learners. Using a variety of tools and methods, it offers flexibility and convenience for staff
development opportunities. Given time to explore on their own and in collaborative learning
environments, teachers can develop new knowledge and skill sets that can directly impact their
pedagogy.

Embracing eLearning is the first step to take toward a systemic change in a district wide
integration of technology. Trentin (2007) stated that “…elearning may have the potential to play
a role in establishing a new culture favoring and supporting all learning processes” (p. 3). When
teachers learn and have time to reflect, they can become better teachers. eLearning can help
establish a collaborative culture, in alignment with the district’s vision toward becoming a
professional learning community.

Obviously, eLearning can help establish a collaborative culture, but its implementation
will be met by several challenges. First, some educators have limited experience with
technology and may not immediately recognize the value in eLearning. Quality eLearning
requires time and collaboration, both of which burdens educators with already “too much on
their plates.” Secondly, the convenience of “anytime, anywhere” learning will extend their
professional duties beyond the school day, which may be met with resistance from staff. Others
may resist the program just because they fear change. For example, some educators have
spent years developing lesson plans and collecting curricular materials. They may wonder why
they have to do anything differently. They have seen educational trends come and go, so they
wonder why they should devote time and energy to learning about technology. They already feel
effective in their content area, and technology is not an area of their expertise. Individual ideas
about effective teaching practices may be difficult to overcome. Finally, support for technology
involves many stakeholders. The public and community may not understand eLearning and will
need to be convinced of the value throughout the process. To create a sustainable program,
strong leadership is needed to drive this initiative. Turnover is inevitable in any organization.
Changes in leadership may require new directions for the program.

Goals
1. Upon completion of two PLC meetings and completion of the first module of a self-paced
eLearning course, 100% of teachers at Centennial Middle School will identify and define
eLearning based on a four-point rubric.
2. Upon completion of the second module of a self-paced eLearning course, at least 80%
of staff at Centennial Middle School will explain a school site problem for which
eLearning could provide a solution.
3. Upon completion of the third module of a self-paced eLearning course combined with
two collaborative work sessions, 25% of staff will research trends in elearning and
educational uses for technology and then compare technological tools for a solution.
4. Upon completion of five collaborative work sessions, 25% of staff will create professional
development activities that will model and teach the use of at least three eLearning tools.
5. Upon completion of three PLC meetings, 100% of teachers at Centennial Middle School
will apply the three eLearning tools in classroom lessons and assess their effectiveness.

Model
I will be using a self-paced, blended learning model utilizing complementary resources to
build my design for learning. Based on Fee's (2009) second model, supported online training
along with complementary resources would best facilitate a pilot program for eLearning at
Priest eLearning Proposal 4

Centennial Middle School. The constructive perspective with a social focus model would best
support the learning context. Having already used the collaborative learning model and inquiry
process in the structure of our weekly professional learning communities, or PLCs, most staff
would benefit from a similar eLearning design. JISC (2004) found:

What is important to the successful adoption of e-learning is… how e-learning can be
effectively integrated into and alongside established practice, to ensure that, whatever
the approach and the intended learning outcomes, the learning potential of all learners is
maximised. Furthermore, learning takes place in a social and curricular as well as
physical context. The individual’s relationship with the group or groups that surround the
learning activities will also partly define the learning outcomes (p.14).

I certainly want to maximize the learning of all learners at my school site. My eLearning
design approach will utilize current district and school site models that have proven the most
successful both socially and in alignment with curricular objectives.

Another model that I plan to use as a guide in future design is the eight-dimensional
model for eLearning sustainability (Trentin, 2007, p.39). This model takes a general approach to
problems in program continuity. It addresses pedagogical, professional, socio-cultural, informal,
technological, economical, organizational, and content dimensions within an eLearning plan. By
analyzing all of these dimensions, future development decisions will be more systemic.

Learner and Audience Analysis

Learners
My pilot program would target forty full-time certified teachers along with ten
paraprofessionals at a 6-8 middle school with approximately 600 students. Although all staff will
be involved in the initial rollout of professional development, only 25% of staff, ten teachers, will
be working in the program development phases. From the pool of educators, 73% of teachers
are currently teaching in the subject in which they hold a degree (Colorado Department of
Education [CDE], 2008). Almost 40% have or are in the process of holding a masters degree.
85% have more than three years of teaching experience, and 15% have taught for less than
three years (CDE, 2008). I would estimate that the staff is about evenly split between digital
natives and digital immigrants. About half of the staff is comfortable with technology, although
only about 10% are using it routinely in their instruction.

Since I will be asking for volunteers to help in the development of the eLearning
program, at this time it is difficult to analyze my training base needs. The profile of my audience
is based on current information taken from last school year’s state accountability report.
Voluntary participation will hopefully attract highly motivated educators, eager to learn about
technology tools to integrate in the classroom.

Audience Needs
Interesting data came from an informal survey to gauge interest in solving a problem
with eLearning at our school site. On September 3, 2009 I e-mailed this question to all
Centennial staff: Please identify a problem at Centennial for which eLearning might provide a
solution. Staff had a week to respond to the question. Only 10% of staff answered this question.
All four respondents identified reading and math as primary problem areas for which technology
could provide a solution. Two of the respondents could not identify eLearning, and one
Priest eLearning Proposal 5

respondent wanted an operational definition for eLearning. When I e-mailed all staff this
question, I just wanted to get an idea of audience needs. I also was interested in what
percentage of staff would even respond; their response indicates that they might be interested
in eLearning.

This data is just a snapshot of audience needs. Since only 10% of staff responded, an
expectation of including only 10-25% of staff in development is realistic. Since 25% of survey
respondents could identify eLearning, this is a good sample of the staff population. Upon further
data analysis, I would predict that only about 25% of staff could adequately identify eLearning
prior to training.

In informal conversations with school staff, teachers want meaningful professional

development that will allow them to expand their knowledge and skills used directly in the
classroom. To illustrate, when I offered a technology in-service three years ago, I had twelve
staff members volunteer to participate. 100% of the participants responded favorably to the
experience, and about half wanted more time to explore uses for technology. As long as the
training offers teaching strategies that they can immediately apply, teachers will be interested in
instructional technology.

Training Gap
The district has no formal mission or vision for eLearning, although technology is
supposed to be a “component of our instructional practices” (MCSD, 2009, p.2). The district
focus for PLC has been curriculum alignment and the building of common assessments.
Overall, the district has focused on assessment, especially the use of data to drive instructional
practices. Now that teachers have a knowledge base for curriculum, data, and assessment, it is
time to prioritize skill development. Many of the students today already know more about
technology than their teachers, and this is detrimental to the educational process (Levin &
Arafeh, 2002). If the district’s mission truly is to ensure that all students learn at their optimal
level, then we are certainly not optimizing their learning experiences with technology.

Teachers need to be better prepared to use technologies with digital native students.
ELearning can help create authentic learning experiences to engage all students to take
responsibility for their own learning. Poe & Stassen found that “Two parallel processes take
place in an online environment: Students become more active, reflective learners. Students and
teachers engage in learning through the use of technology and become more familiar with
technology by using it.” (p.5)

We are not adequately preparing students for learning in the 21st Century. The National
Education Technology Plan proposed the following in 2004:

Teachers have more resources available through technology than ever before, but some
have not received sufficient training in the effective use of technology to enhance
learning. Teachers need access to research, examples and innovations as well as staff
development to learn best practices.

Recommendations for states, districts and individual schools include:

 Improve the preparation of new teachers in the use of technology.

 Ensure that every teacher has the opportunity to take online learning courses.
Priest eLearning Proposal 6

 Improve the quality and consistency of teacher education through measurement,

accountability and increased technology resources (pgs. 40-41)

This eLearning proposal will address an apparent gap between rhetoric and reality. It will
help prepare teachers to use technology by offering the opportunity for teachers to take a self-
paced, blended learning online course.

Staff development for technology has focused primarily on informational technology, not
on instructional technology. It is time to shift the focus. We have administrative leadership in
Kirk Henwood, who helped drive many of the curricular reforms. The district just hired a
technology instructional facilitator, the first district position of its kind. Well-trained teachers with
support from stakeholders can lead systemic change, helping to bring technology in the
Montrose County School District into the 21st Century learning environment.

Feasibility/Planning
Content Design & Development Plans

I will primarily be designing and developing the initial content, but I will not be the only
person involved in the professional development process. I will define my role as project
manager. I will initiate the design and development phases, but I expect to rely heavily on input
and feedback from the established instructional leadership team. I plan to complete a formative
evaluation of the first two modules by requesting that the instructional leadership team, along
with a sample of the staff population, review the modules. Based on their assessments, I will
revise the first two modules and then invite the instructional leadership team to help plan for the
implementation phase.

After the first two modules are introduced through PLCs, I will utilize a more collaborative
approach to content development. eMentors will gradually assume responsibility for content
development. The third module and collaborative work sessions will offer them some content
that I personally design and develop, but I will expect them, through the exploration of
technology tools, to develop the other half of the content. My role will still be defined as a project
manager, but I will become more of an instructional leader and facilitator at this point.
Depending on my team members, I may have to adapt to individual eMentor learner needs. I
plan to use collaborative leadership to motivate eMentors, and I will expect eMentors to share
the role of instructional leadership to achieve the fourth and fifth goals (Rubin, 2009). In the final
phase of the program, the eMentors will be entirely responsible for the design, development,
and implementation of content. Hopefully this strategy will empower eMentors to develop further
content. Since new technologies are always emerging, staff involvement will lead to more
professional development targeted specifically for instructional technology.

Administrative Support

The success of this program would require administrative support. Administration can
help communicate the vision for this eLearning proposal to instructional leaders. This team will
be accountable for the initial content design and development decisions, so it is critical that I
have their buy-in before presenting to all staff. The instructional leaders who are already
interested in continuous improvement look to administration for guidance and leadership. If
administration can convey the value for this program, then it will be much easier to manage
resistance from staff. Administrative support will be vital to project and change management.
Priest eLearning Proposal 7

Fortunately, the current administration is extremely supportive of technology use in the

classroom. The introduction of eLearning to the staff and professional development would
contribute to overall school goals of improving student academic achievement. The program
design would be similar to previously successful professional development models and would
align with overall school wide goals. The principal makes many decisions using collaborative
leadership, so she would definitely support collaboration among staff.

Technical Specifications

Our district does not support an LMS, so the logistics and tools will have to be carefully
considered. The introduction of eLearning to staff would be feasible in the current PLC structure.
Overall, the district has 1,530 computers, excluding administrative computers, and Centennial
has 158 of those computers, which is the second highest number of computers at a school site
in the district (MCSD, 2008, p. 26). Every staff member has a computer in the classroom. The
school has a cart of twenty portable laptops. We have two computer labs, two in the south
building totaling about forty computers and one with about thirty computers in the technology
classroom, at least half of which were just updated this school year. Computer and Internet
access for all staff members should not be an issue.

Security and blockage issues would have to be thoroughly investigated prior to course
development. A member of IT would need to be included in the logistics of securing online
modules for staff to access. Since the former Centennial principal is now in charge of district
technology, including the IT department, a rapport has already been established. His support
will be important to the launch of our program.

Technical issues are addressed through a “help ticket” to the IT department. If teachers
have to submit help tickets for technical issues that arise throughout the first two modules, then
the potential delay in response time could be a hindrance to learning (Eyberg, 2009). Since the
district’s technical support is severely limited, a technical plan to “troubleshoot” issues that may
arise will have to be agreed upon between the school site and IT team.

Budget
Content Design and Development Hours 100 x $20 $2,000
Building Support for Proposal $0
Introduction to Key Stakeholders Hours 3 x $20 $60
Formative Evaluations of Modules 1, 2 $0
Revisions to Module 1, 2 Hours 10 x $20 $200
Administrative Meeting Hours 1 x $20 $20
PLC: Introduction to eLearning Hours 2 x $20 $40
PLC: Purpose of Module 1 Hours 2 x $20 $40
Module 1: Staff Implementation
IT, Technical Support Hours 20 x $20 $400
Evaluation of Module 1 $0
Instructional Leadership Team Meeting Hour 1 x $20 $20
Administrative Meeting Hour 1 x $20 $20
Building Support for eMentor Team
Revisions to Module 3 Hours 10 x $20 $200
PLC: Module 2 Hours 2 x $20 $40
Priest eLearning Proposal 8

Module 2: Staff Implementation

IT, Technical Support Hours 20 x $20 $400
PLC: Evaluation of Module 2 $0
Preliminary Establishment of eMentor Team $0
Module 3: Implementation
Planning/Content Development Hours 20 x $20 $400
Paid Staff Development
10 people, 3 sessions of 2 hours each Hours 60 x $20 $1,200
Establishment of eMentor Team $0
eMentor Collaborative Work Sessions Hours 10 x $20 $200
Planning/Content Development

eMentor Collaborative Work Sessions $0, if

contractual as
part of PLC
time
PLC: Using Web 2.0 Tools in Education $0, if
contractual as
part of PLC
time
Staff Implementation: Web 2.0 Tools $0, if
contractual as
part of PLC
time
Evaluation $0
Total Program Cost $5,240

Timeline
Content Design and Development Jan 2010-Aug 2010
Building Support for Proposal Ongoing
Introduction to Key Stakeholders Sept 2010
-School Board Meeting
-Administrative Meeting
Goals: Review of Staff Survey Data
Proposal Introduction
Budget/Timeline Review
Decision Making for Planning
Oct 2010
-Instructional Leadership Team Meeting
Goals: Proposal Introduction
Formative Evaluations of Modules 1, 2 By Nov 1, 2010
Revisions to Module 1, 2 Nov 2010-Jan 2011
Administrative Meeting Jan 2011
Goals: Course Review and Evaluation
Planning for Implementation
PLC: Introduction to eLearning Jan/Feb 2011
PLC: Purpose of Module 1 Jan/Feb 2011
Module 1: Staff Implementation Feb 2011-Apr 2011
Priest eLearning Proposal 9

Evaluation of Module 1 By early Apr 2011

Instructional Leadership Team Meeting Mar/Apr 2011
Goals: Formative Evaluation for Module 3
Administrative Meeting Apr 2011
Goals: Evaluation of Module 1
Debrief Staff Data
Planning for Modules 2, 3
Preliminary eMentor List
Building Support for eMentor Team Mar 2011-May 2011
Revisions to Module 3
PLC: Module 2 Apr 2011
Module 2: Staff Implementation Apr 2011-May 2011
PLC: Evaluation of Module 2 May 2011
Preliminary Establishment of eMentor Team May 2011
Module 3: Implementation Summer 2011
Collaborative Work Session 1: Research eLearning Trends
Collaborative Work Session 2: Web 2.0 Tools in Education
Establishment of eMentor Team Aug 2011
eMentor Collaborative Work Sessions Sept 2011-Oct 2011
1. Teambuilding
2. Compare Tools for Solutions based on summer work
3. Choose eLearning tool, Make team decisions Nov 2011
4. Work Session Dec 2011
5. Work Session
PLC: Using Web 2.0 Tools in Education Jan 2012-Mar 2012
Staff Implementation: Web 2.0 Tools Jan 2012-Mar 2012
Evaluation By Apr 2012

Marketing and Promotion

In alignment with Fee’s (2009) value added approach, the value of this eLearning
program must be stressed to the district, administrators, and school staff. The program will need
to be marketed and promoted to each of these stakeholder groups. The district will be interested
in the return on investment, ROI, and how piloting the program will make the district look
favorable to community stakeholders. The budget and timeline used must be carefully outlined,
in alignment with the professional development goals of the PLCs and district wide
accountability plans.

A presentation to the school board prior to the introduction of the proposal would have
many advantages. First, the forum would be public. The audience would represent all
stakeholders not directly involved with the project. Not only would all administrative district
personnel be present, but also key political leaders, some teachers, parents, and students.
Secondly, the meeting would offer an opportunity for community input. If any resistance were
encountered, it would be better to address the feedback at this level before presenting the
program ideas to the administration and instructional leadership team at the school site.

Two key district level personnel to include in marketing will be Kirk Henwood, the
director of instructional services, and the instructional technology district facilitator, Adam Truitt.
Fairly new to their positions, they both come from strong teaching backgrounds and are already
trying to integrate technology into classrooms throughout the district. They also work directly
Priest eLearning Proposal 10

with the IT department, so they can help solve technical issues that may arise throughout
implementation of the program.

At the administrative level, the best approach would be a face-to-face meeting to discuss
the eLearning program’s benefits. The principal, assistant principal, instructional media center
librarian, and counselors would need to be initially involved with the program. The purpose of an
introductory meeting would be to communicate the overall plan and to get input into decisions
regarding budget and timeline. Ultimately, the value of the program would be framed in the
context of providing professional development, while increasing overall staff integration of
technology tools into teaching and learning.

One approach of the eLearning program could be to focus solely on increasing literacy
skills. Literacy would especially appeal to the principal and the director of instructional services,
since both of their educational concentrations have focused on literacy-based instruction. For
example, tools such as wikis, podcasts, digital stories, Windows Media Maker, Voicethread,
Google Docs, and Camtasia Studio could easily engage students, providing useful project-
based assessments to motivate students in reading and writing. More important than raising
student test scores, students could use these tools to develop their overall technical skills for
future trends.

Marketing the program to staff would be as inclusive as possible. First, I would survey
staff to gauge interest in professional development specifically for technology. Through the PLC
structure, we would introduce all staff to eLearning. Based on input from administration and the
instructional leadership team, along with survey data results, we would compile a list of teachers
who are already using technology in their instructional practices. This group would represent a
cross section of the school, including digital natives and digital immigrants, all grade levels, and
various subject areas. Before a second PLC, I would individually talk to teachers from the list
that I think would be most interested in the use of technology for teaching. By personalizing
these interactions, I believe the teachers, most of whom I already have a good rapport with, will
be more responsive to and enthusiastic for new ideas. Innovative teachers will advocate the
value of the eLearning program. These eMentors would then form the basis of a collaborative
group to show other staff members how to use and then apply particular Web 2.0 tools.

Implementation and Project Management

Although I will manage the initial phases of development and implementation, I will
involve as many important stakeholders as I can in project management. District office
personnel and the administrative team will ultimately make decisions concerning the budget and
timeline. Administration will also help manage the initial introduction of eLearning to all staff in
the first two modules. I will rely specifically on Nancy Alex, prinicipal, Joe Simo, assistant
principal, and Joan Light-Kraft, instructional media center librarian, to offer insights and advice
in the beginning stages of project management. Once a group of eMentors is established, this
group will manage the project’s implementation. Utilizing collaborative leadership, the eMentors
and I will manage the process of subsequent professional development sessions (Rubin, 2009).
The eMentors will directly impact the timeline and achievement of the program’s eLearning
goals. I have outlined more specific roles for implementation in my change management plan.
Priest eLearning Proposal 11

Evaluation
Evaluation of the eLearning program will be based on survey data, participant feedback,
administrative evaluation, and performance assessment. The first learning goal is to have 100%
of teachers at Centennial Middle School identify and define eLearning after a PLC meeting and
the completion of a self-paced eLearning course. The staff will take an online pre and post
survey to assess their knowledge of eLearning. A four-point rubric (TBD) will be used to
evaluate whether or not teachers can identify and define eLearning upon completion of the first
module.

The goal of the second module is for at least 80% of staff to explain a school site
problem for which eLearning could provide a solution. A wiki will be embedded as an
assessment tool in the second module, to initiate a conversation about technology among
teachers. Staff will be expected to use and contribute to the wiki, which will be a partial
measurement of the second learning outcome. In addition, participant feedback will be collected
during a collaborative work session. During this collaborative work session, at least 80% of staff
will brainstorm school site problems for which technology could provide a solution. Keeping in
mind the expectations of valuable stakeholders in the entire professional development process
and the culture of our school district, administration will evaluate these results. The evaluation
will involve a face-to-face meeting with administrators involved with the initial decision making
processes. The focus will be on whether or not the program that has been implemented thus far
is meeting the learning objectives and matching their expectations in terms of a value added
approach to professional development. Additionally, we will discuss any changes for the
implementation process, in accordance to the change management plan.

Based on the formative evaluation with the first two modules, at least 25% of staff will
then continue to the third module. The basis of the third module will be for them to research
eLearning trends and educational uses for technology. Project assessment, which will require
each individual to write a reflection, will be part of the evaluation process for the third module’s
learning outcome. During the two collaborative work sessions, individuals would use these
reflections to guide decision-making. They would re-visit the staff list of problems from module
two to pick three problems that could be solved by an eLearning solution. With a partner, they
would then choose one of the problems to address, applying research to develop a
presentation. The evaluation for this part of the program would be performance assessment.
Each pair would have to present their problem along with the technological solutions to all staff.

Staff would then evaluate the information presented by their colleagues by applying the
tools directly to their teaching. To measure whether or not 100% of staff applied technology,
eMentors would try to offer coaching and feedback during classroom sessions when individuals
planned to integrate the technology. eMentors would be responsible for tracking the
implementation of the various technology tools, helping to measure results. This system of
evaluation will need to be more thoroughly developed and refined based on logistics, staff
needs, and leadership capabilities of the eMentoring group. After a three-month period of having
teachers see what works and does not work with technology, the final evaluation would be a
staff survey that would rate the effectiveness of each technological solution. This data could
then drive future eLearning programs.

Overall, the effectiveness of this eLearning proposal will depend on the eMentors. The
eMentors will communicate the potential for eLearning in education. The “bottom line” of this
program is whether or not Centennial Middle School comes to value eLearning. If teachers can
Priest eLearning Proposal 12

successfully apply technology tools to their teaching, then they hopefully will be less intimidated
by technology. This will result in more organizational support for changing ideas about teaching
and learning, which is advantageous for students. One long-term outcome of a sustainable
eLearning program could be a rise in student achievement. Most stakeholders expect education
to help students succeed.

Change Management Plan

The Montrose County School District is very hierarchical, and administrators assume
much responsibility for the state of the district. Business is centralized; workflows at times can
seem antiquated, redundant, and in need of modernization. The district values human
relationships, but sometimes personal agendas get in the way of progressive communication
that will ultimately improve student achievement. Communication is usually from the top down,
with rationales not always given for why a particular change is needed. Change is not always
implemented effectively within the district, perhaps reflecting the community’s expectation of
keeping traditions.

The status quo is unacceptable. If the district expects to grow, then optimizing all
students’ learning experiences will not be a mission statement, but will become an action plan.
Teachers and students would have to determine the state of the district, not administrators.
Business would have to become less centralized, with an approach to systemic change as a
goal. Personal agendas would need to be put aside for the sake of doing what is best for kids.
Communication would have to be clear, and more communication would need to come from the
bottom up than from the top down.

This proposal attempts to articulate a need for change from a pedagogical perspective.
My vision for technology will change how teachers and students view learning. Through
professional development, instructional practices will change. A collaborative culture will be
nurtured at Centennial Middle School. First, I will communicate this vision through key
stakeholders. My next step is to gain administrative support and involve the instructional
leadership team to assist in decision-making before course design and development. Even if
executive leadership changes, based on the history of the school site, a teamwork approach to
decisions about the proposal will ensure that the program can survive under new leadership.

Sponsorship will be critical to my change management plan. Both of my administrators

are delegators, which will work to my advantage since they will delegate project management,
leaving me responsible for most of the change management. Since I anticipate their program
sponsorship and support for the change, this will only increase my credibility as project
manager. However, since I have limited change management experience, I will rely heavily on
their input and insights to drive decision-making processes. This will ensure that the scope,
goals, and objectives will not vary drastically from their original intent.

Roles
Joe Simo, assistant principal, will be the key sponsor. In his fifth year at the school, he is
knowledgeable of the school landscape and culture. He has been someone who staff has
looked to for leadership in times of change. He has knowledge of technology, using it regularly
in his daily practices, and supports technology integration. He has a positive rapport overall with
most staff, and he will have the potential to resolve conflict among primary sponsors.
Priest eLearning Proposal 13

The primary sponsors would be the eMentors, as they will drive the initiative’s outcomes.
The secondary sponsors will be the administrative team and the instructional leadership team.
One person from either of the two secondary sponsor groups will be an eMentor. This will help
facilitate communication between primary and secondary sponsors, which will also be valuable
politically.

Communication
My change management plan will focus on communicating the right message to the right
people at the right time. Involving all in the initial phase of the program will ensure that channels
for communication are kept open, so as to avoid early miscommunication and potential
sabotage of efforts to institute change. Because the district has a communication flow mostly
from the top down, it will present a cultural change to create a site communication channel that
flows from the bottom up. By insuring that employees receive the timeliest information through
e-mail messages, PLCs, and individual conversations, employees will feel that their input and
feedback is vital to the program’s success. “The best change programs reinforce core
messages through regular, timely advice that is both inspirational and practicable” (McVay
Lynch & Roecker, 2007, p.135). Our communications will strive to inspire through multiple
channels of conversations. When people hear the same ideas at the same time, then there is a
consistency that lends credibility to a plan.

Identifying Resistance
Administrative support will also make this plan more believable to staff. Since the current
organizational culture is heavily influenced by district norms, teachers depend on administration
for leadership during times of change. By imparting the value of the program to administrators,
then we can work together to identify common concerns that may affect the overall
implementation of future changes. In addition to identifying a list of teachers most apt to be
eMentors, we will brainstorm factors that might lead to resistance in utilizing technology.
Although administration may be able to identify reasons for resistance, they will certainly not
identify all personal reasons that employees may resist the program. The instructional
leadership team could have a collaborative discussion, to identify some common
misconceptions about technology; in order to address some of the most commonly predicted
factors for resistance. Some of the reasons that employees might resist advocating eLearning
would be: fear, limited knowledge, lack of time, lack of resources, authority issues, adherence to
traditions, lack of incentives, or lack of motivation. These issues could be built into the first PLC
meeting, to try to prevent some potential problems that could arise during implementation.

Creating Ownership and an Analysis of Support/Opposition

By introducing this program to all staff, I hope to be inclusive and build a readiness for
change. By involving all staff in learning about eLearning, the program will create a sense of
ownership. “Ownership is often best created by involving people in identifying problems and
crafting solutions” (McVay Lynch & Roecker, 2007, p.134). Consequently, having all staff
brainstorm a list of possible problems that could be solved by eLearning will open their minds to
exploring the potential for eLearning.

Digital natives most likely will accept this potential. Since many are already using
technology in the classroom, they will perceive the need for learning about new technology
tools. Individual relationships will be important to build with digital native supporters, which is
why we will encourage them to become eMentors. This will promote a sense of ownership, and
having their support in the initial stages of the program is important because they can advocate
Priest eLearning Proposal 14

the perceived need for change, convincing some initial opponents and fence sitters also to be
included in the eMentor team. Digital immigrants will probably be split; there will some
supporters and opponents, but I would predict a majority of “fence sitters.”

The “fence sitters” will resist supporting or opposing the program because change
affects people emotionally. The human dimension of change must be addressed in this change
management plan. The emotions associated with change will be managed through thoughtful
design of the second module. I plan to manage the positive reaction cycle, which describes how
people respond both positively and negatively to change over time (Straker, D., 2005). Using a
wiki will help manage the uninformed pessimism stage of the positive change reaction cycle. If
people feel that they have a voice and can readily participate in the process, then they will
hopefully feel more invested in the program. Also, people will hopefully feel comfortable in airing
their fears and concerns in a somewhat anonymous format. Administrators and active
supporters of the program may help convince some fence sitters of the need for change by
contributing their thoughts and ideas in a wiki.

Managing Resistance
By including 25% of staff, a representative group in the eMentoring program, it will be
easier to manage resistance to the project. Major transformations involve 20% of staff, and a
program’s value is sustained through collective actions (McVay Lynch & Roecker, 2007, p. 132).
The scope of the project will affect only about ten staff members at first, so the amount of work
and complexity of the work will focus initially on increasing collaborative synergy among
teachers. As concerns about change are voiced within the eMentor team collaborative work
sessions, the number of people affected by the change and degree of resistance will be kept to
a reasonably manageable level. This small group will serve as a “focus group” to work out
potential pitfalls of the change management plan. They will be the “eyes and ears” of eLearning,
bringing a realistic portrait of how the perceived change is affecting the school landscape and
culture. Earle (2002) proposed:

Conversion to a theory, practice, process, or approach, such as technology

integration, is a very personal process. It involves preparation of the teacher (building
relationships of trust, helping teachers feel and recognize the power of teaching with
technology, personalizing training, and finding out teacher needs, interests, and
concerns), commitment by the teacher, following-up on that commitment by the support
team, and resolving teacher concerns arising during the change process. Teachers
move through at least three levels—confidence, competence, and creativity. It is a
process of gradualness as they progress from learner to adopter to leader. At first they
utilize existing practices, then adapt to their own needs, and finally design their own
integrated experiences (p. 13)

Technology embedded professional development has not been previously introduced

within this school culture. Relationships and flexibility will be key to managing change. Since
75% of staff will not be involved in the final three modules, some stakeholders may perceive this
flexibility as instability or a lack of direction. This perception can be overcome by managing each
part of the change process carefully, communicating learning outcomes clearly to participants,
evaluating the program’s effectiveness, revising approaches along the way if necessary,
continually analyzing the human issues involved, and addressing the systematic cultural change
in values and beliefs toward technology at the school site.
Priest eLearning Proposal 15

Managing a Transformative Change

The ‘what how’ approach to collaboration will help manage this transformative change in
values and beliefs (McVay Lynch & Roecker, 2007, p. 143). Since the stakeholders are
professionals, they will be treated with dignity. If people feel left out, then they may not support
the change process. The eMentors will use information from initial staff brainstorm sessions to
guide their research, so everyone will have a strategic voice throughout the entire process. The
administrative team, including myself as project manager, will guide the strategic decisions
concerning design and initial implementation, but once an eMentoring group is established, the
what and how of professional development will be entrusted to this team of collaborators. The
achievement of learning outcomes will depend on buy-in from most of the staff, so the
collaborative ‘what how’ approach might be the best strategic long-term plan. Time constraints
and financial resources will not be a major factor, so collaboration will make long-term change
possible. Investment in collaboration at the school site, which will require time and effort, will
pay dividends for stakeholders at the district level. If our school model were successful, then
there would be a strong likelihood that it could be adapted to other school sites. When all school
sites are using technology advantageously, then a true professional learning community is born.

To communicate this predictable transformation, it will be necessary to show evidence of

change to important stakeholders. I plan to provide data from evaluation along the way to show
success of the proposal. Marketing this change might include updates for the school board, one-
to-one meetings with important stakeholders; for example, the director of curriculum and
instruction; check-ins with administration, regular communications with the instructional
leadership team, and even presentations at PLCs.

People will be steadfast to future change if they are convinced of the need for reform.
They may approach long-term change with an attitude of “What’s in it for me?” The intent of the
program must be clear: We want to support teachers to become better teachers, enabling them
to have more tools to make their jobs easier. Change will best be managed over a long period of
time. It will take over two school years to implement my proposal with systemic changes
expected over a three-year period. More people will give their commitment to a project that is
carefully planned and implemented over time, resulting in better results that can be used as
verification that the change management plan is working.
Priest eLearning Proposal 16

References
Bassoppo-Moyo, T. (2006). Evaluating eLearning: A frontend, process, and post hoc

approach. International Journal of Instructional Media, volume 33(1), 1-22.

Colorado Department of Education. School accountability reports [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://reportcard.cde.state.co.us/reportcard/pdf/2008_2180_1392_M.pdf

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? [Electronic version].

Educational Leadership, 61(8), 1-6.

Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises

and challenges. Educational Technology Magazine, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved October 28,

2009 from http://bookstoread.com/etp/earle.pdf

Eyberg, L. (2009, September 26). RE: Amy’s technical specifications. Message posted to

http://cu.ecollege.com/re/DotNextLaunch.asp?courseid=3580513

Fee, K. (2009). Delivering e-learning: A complete strategy for design, application, and

assessment. London, U.K.: Kogan Page Limited.

Joint Information Systems Committee. (2004). Effective practice with e-learning. Retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/pub_eff_prac_elearn.aspx
Priest eLearning Proposal 17

Jones, B. E., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and

using educational technology. Retrieved from

http://rsdweb.k12.ar.us/departments/tech/Technology%20Committee/Tech%20Books/pl

ug_in.pdf

Kozloski, K. (2006). Principal leadership for technology integration: A study of principal

technology leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University,

Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from

http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/NECC_Research_Paper_Archive

s/NECC_2007/Kozloski_Kristen_N07.pdf

Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy

students and their schools for the pew internet & american life project. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/9a/3

8.pdf

McVay Lynch, L. & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful

design, delivery and management. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Montrose County School District. (2009). The state of the district. Retrieved from

http://www.mcsd.org/district/SOD/curriculum.pdf
Priest eLearning Proposal 18

Poe, M., & Stassen, M., (Eds.) Teaching and learning online: Communication, community, and

assessment. Retrieved from

http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/online_handbooks/Teaching_and_Learni

ng_Online_Handbook.pdf

Rubin, H. (2009). Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships for communities

and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Straker, D. (2005). Change management: The psychology of change. Retrieved from

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/psychology_change/positive_

change.htm

Trentin G. (2007). A multidimensional approach to e-learning sustainability, Educational

Technology, volume 47 (5), 36-40.

United States Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in american

education: How the internet, the law, and today’s students are revolutionizing

expectations. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html

Voorhis, G. (n.d.). Superintendent’s message. Retrieved from

http://www.mcsd.org/district/supMessage.cfmquote
Priest eLearning Proposal Appendix

Key Stakeholders

District Level Community Level

School District Community Parents

Board Personnel

Superintendent
of Curriculum &
Instruction

Director of
Instructional
Instructional Services IT Team
Technology Coordinators
Facilitator

School Level

Administrative Instructional Project

Team Leadership Manager
Team (ILT)

Principal

Primary
Sponsors

Key Sponsor eMentors

Assistant Principal

Counselors

Instructional
Media
Librarian
Priest eLearning Proposal Appendix

Content Design and Development –Proposed Task List

1. Module 1: Define eLearning resources

2. Module 1: Rubric
3. Module 2: Define eLearning tools
4. Initial Technology Staff Survey
5. School Board Meeting Presentation Using a Web 2.0 Tool
6. Goals/Agenda for Administrative Meeting 1
7. Goals/Agenda for Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) Meeting
8. Formative Evaluation Plan and Process for Modules 1&2
9. Goals/Agenda for Administrative Meeting 2
10. Pre-PLC eLearning Staff Survey
11. Post-PLC eLearning Staff Survey
12. Wiki Creation-Logistics Meeting w/ IT Agenda & Questions
13. Staff “professional” code agreement and screen cast for wiki usage
14. Participant feedback format for collaborative work session
15. Brainstorming Staff PLC Activity (Kagan’s examples)
16. Goals/Agenda for Administrative Meeting 3
17. Evaluation: Value Added Approach & Expectations: Exceed/Meet/Not Meet
Analysis
18. Formative Evaluation Plan & Process for Module 3
19. PLC Module 2 Content/Plan
20. Project Assessment/Reflection for Module 2
21. Performance Assessment Criteria/Rubric
22. Outline of eMentor Marketing Strategies Plan
23. eMentor Coaching Plan
24. eMentor Evaluative Instrument for Classroom Visits
25. Peer Evaluation tools
26. Final Staff Survey-Compare and analyze results to initial technology staff
survey, include open-ended questions for future content/prof dev plans