A Maturity Model for Assessing the Use of ICT in School Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Furthermore, the feedback we received enabled us to make improvements to the structure of the model. As a result, we moved two CVs from one domain to another one. Conclusions The main benefits identified in the ICTE-MM model application are: It is a reference framework to identify the areas that support an ICTE strategy, based on internationally recognized standards for ICT management and education. The proposed ICTE-MM model provides a basis for self-assessment and improvement planning. In terms of theoretical implications, it is not just a diagnostic tool but has also been found to be useful for guiding the principals in moving towards best practices in management and ICT investment. The Leverage Domains, along with their KDA and variables that determine the capability maturity, are involved in a dynamic cycle, the school requirements acting as the main triggering input. This cycle allows for each school to achieve continuous improvement of ICT use in education, making it easier for them to transit towards higher maturity levels through planed roadmaps. One of the most important practical implications of the model is that the application of the ICTE-MM provides data to formulate technological projects and to base budgetary requests tailored to the individual school. This may help the principals to base their decision making on facts. It has a methodology to determine an improvement roadmap; besides the 5 leverage domains, 25 KDA and 103 CVs, the model incorporates organizational capabilities and maturity. Each KDA critical variable has minimum required values for higher MLs, marking improvement roadmaps for the school. The developed model was built and tailored to the characteristics of public schools in a developing country. This target school has a low budget and no in-house expert for technical assistance. Consequently, the ICTE-MM model is operationalised with a web tool for self-assessment of critical variables that acknowledge the capabilities of each school to carry out ICTE initiatives and guide principals in technical decisions. Finally, this model distinguishes between capacity, a characteristic of KDA, and maturity, as a property of the school as a whole. The level of maturity allows one to define a "roadmap" to improve the school’s ability to address the challenges of education in the country. Acknowledgments This work was partially funded by DGIP-UTFSM, Project No. 241142 and the Electronic Government Center of the Informatic Department - UTFSM. References Bonina, C., & Frick, M. (2007). ICTs and education: A survey on available indicators and current evaluation methods. Mexico City, Spanish: Programa de Investigaciòn en Telecomunicaciones, Telecom CIDE, Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica. CMMI (2006). Software engineering institute: CMMI for development v1.2. USA. Retrieved from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06tr008.pdf Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review (Report to Becta). DfES The National Curriculum online. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1627/1/becta_2007_landscapeimpactreview_report.pdf Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computer & Education, 51(2), 669-686. Harris, K. (2004). Use a maturity model to make the most of e-learning. (Gartner Research Note DF-22-3036). Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/id=428821 Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E., & Rehbein, L. (2004). Technology in schools: Education, ICT and the knowledge society. Institute of Informática Educativa, Universidad de La Frontera–Banco Mundial, Chile. Retrieved Jun 14, 2011, from http://www.worldbank.org/education/pdf/ICT_report_oct04a.pdf ITGI TM , The IT Governance Institute (2007). COBIT® 4.1. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.isaca.org/Knowledge- Center/cobit/Documents/COBIT4.pdf 217
Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 1083-1096). New York, NY: Springer. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55. Margaret Sanger Center International (2009). Steps to transforming evaluation practice for social change. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.stepstoolkit.org/ Marshall, S, & Mitchell, G. (2006). Assessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning maturity model. In D. Whitelock and S. Wheeler (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for Learning Technologies Conference (pp. 203-214). Edinburgh, UK: Heriot- Watt University. Mineduc, Ministery of Education (2009). Compendio de informacion estadística educacional. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.mineduc.cl/biblio/ NETS-A (2002). International society for technology in education: National education technology standards for Administrator. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-administrators NETS-S (2007). International Society for Technology in education: National education technology standards for student. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students NETS-T (2008). International society for technology in education: National education technology standards for teachers. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.pdf Neuhauser, C (2004). A maturity model: Does it provide a path for online course design? The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(1), 1-17. Nido (2011). International school nido de aguilas. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.nido.cl/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=255&Itemid=299&lang=es Olsson, L. (2006). Implementing use of ICT in teacher education. In D. Kumar & J. Turner (Eds.), Education for the 21 st Century- Impact of ICT and Digital Resources (pp. 387-391). Boston, MA: Springer. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education 37(2), 163-178. Rodríguez, P., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Sepúlveda, M. (2010). A monitoring and evaluation scheme for an ICT-supported education program in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 166–179. Sabattin, J (2009). Un modelo de madurez para los establecimientos educacionales [A maturity model for educational institutions] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile, Spanish. Saiti, A., & Prokopiadou, G. (2009). Impact of information and communication technologies on school administration: Research on the Greek schools of secondary education. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5693, 305-316. Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Francis & Taylor Group. Sun, J., Heath, M., Byrom, E., Phlegar, J., & Dimock, K. V. (2010). Planning into practice resources for planning, implementing, and integrating instructional technology. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://www.serve.org/FileLibraryDetails.aspx?id=134 Tomei, L. (2005). Taxonomy for the technology domain: A classification of educational objectives for the technology domain. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing TSSA (2001). Technology standards for school administrators. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://www.ncrtec.org/pd/tssa/ Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L., Hayes, M., …Selwood, I. (2010). Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school level factors 2010. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1578084/Understanding_the_Impact_of_Technology_Learner_and_School_level_factors UNESCO (2008). UNESCO standards for ICT competencies for teachers. Towards ICT skills for teachers. Retrieved from http://cst.unesco-ci.org/sites/projects/cst/default.aspx Valdés, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G. & Visconti, M. (2011). Conception, development and implementation of an e-government maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly. 28(2), 176-187. Wagner, D. A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R. B., Miller, J., & Unwin, T. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of ICT in education projects: A handbook for developing countries. Washington, DC: infoDev. Waissbluth, M. (2010). Playtime is over: the inequality in education. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Debate. Zamani B. E. (2010). Successful implementation factors for using computers in Iranian schools during one decade (1995-2005). Computers and Education, 54(1), 59-68. Zhihua, L., & Zhaojun, W. (2009). The application of maturity model in the schools’ ICT project. In J. Feng (Ed.), Proceedings 2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (pp. 1-4). doi: 10.1109/CISE.2009.5366438. 218
Page 1 and 2: Solar, M., Sabattin, J., & Parada,
Page 3 and 4: Technology Standards for School Adm
Page 5 and 6: Proposed Maturity Model for ICT in
Page 7 and 8: (INF-5) Security. This measure allo
Page 9 and 10: Learning & Teaching 3 3 3 Productiv
Page 11: was sent to 19 stakeholders as show

A Maturity Model for Assessing the Use of ICT in School Education

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?