Total Quality

Management:

Philosophy and Tools Used To Achieve a

School Technology Goal

 

CET 765 Final Project

By Sandy Nightingale

 

 

 

 

Statement of Technology Goal

 

Professional Faculty/Staff Involved

 

Flowchart: Major Steps of the Problem-Solving Process

 

TQM Problem-SolvingTools Used


Examples of Data Collected


Problem Solving Using a Systems Approach

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer - The information used in this report is fictitious and in no way represents a real situation.  This report

                    was written solely as an academic exercise in an educational leadership class at Dakota State  

                   University.

 

 

 

Statement of Technology Goal

 

The White Lake School District will provide staff training on the use of technology.

  • Objective 1:  Time will be provided for an In-Service presented by the technology committee.  The In-Service will include integrating technology into the content standards: Health, Science, Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, and Industrial Arts.
  • Objective 2:  TTL and DTL Academies will be provided for classroom teachers, administrators, and network administrators funded by the LOFTI Grant and State of South Dakota.
  • Objective 3:  All teachers, within one year will be competent in using technology and integrating it into their classrooms.

 

Professional Faculty/Staff Involved

 

     The Technology Committee consisted of:

§         Mr. Johnson, Superintendent, Elementary Principal

§         Mr. Hoffman, High School Principal, completed TTL for administrators

§         Mr. Doering, Technology Coordinator, Computer Engineer

§         Mr. Kolousek, High School Computer Teacher, completed DTL, Master’s Degree in Educational Technology

§         Mr. Schroeder, Elementary Computer Teacher, completed TTL and DTL, pursuing Master’s Degree in Educational Technology

§         Mrs. Riter, High School Science Teacher, completed DTL

§         Mrs. Bosworth, 4th Grade Teacher, completed TTL and DTL, Master’s Degree in Educational Technology

§         Miss VanSoest, 2nd Grade Teacher, completed TTL and WebMaster training

§         Mrs. Nightingale, 1st Grade Teacher, completed TTL, DTL, and WebMaster training, pursuing Master’s Degree in Educational Technology

 

     The members of this committee were chosen because of their expertise in technology and dedication to the continual improvement of the White Lake School.

The committee member’s qualifications are listed after his/her name.

 

 

Flowchart of Major Steps of the Problem-Solving Process

 

 

TQM Problem-Solving Tools Used

 

For Generating and Organizing Data:

     The Technology Committee met on August 22, 2002 during the Pre-School In-Service.  The purpose of the meeting was to review and update the Technology Plan from the previous year.  The desired outcome of the meeting was to come up with suggestions to stimulate progress toward achieving any of the goals from the Technology Plan that had not already been met.  It was noted by Mr. Johnson that the school district had done an excellent job in achieving all the goals of the Technology Plan except one, the goal of providing staff training on the use of technology and integrating it into the curriculum.  Through formal and informal classroom observations and discussions with various teachers, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hoffman were pleased that most teachers were utilizing technology and integrating it into their classrooms in very effective ways.  Although In-Services had been conducted on this topic, some teachers had expressed that they were not yet comfortable using technology and would like further guidance on how to integrate technology into the curriculum.  The group decided to focus on this goal and to try to come up with ways to help teachers incorporate technology into their classrooms during the upcoming year.  Mrs. Nightingale suggested Brainstorming, utilizing the Crawford Slip, method in an effort to discover ways to encourage progress toward achieving this goal.  The group agreed that this would be a good way for all members of the group to freely contribute their ideas.  Each person was given a stack of Post-It notes.  They were instructed to write their comments on the Post-It notes in six words or less without talking.  Each comment was placed on a white board for the rest of the group to see.  They continued until all comments were posted.  See Figure 1 for the results of the Brainstorming activity.  Mr. Schroeder then suggested that they arrange the comments in an Affinity Diagram.  The group agreed that this would be a good way to categorize the comments.  The group members looked over each of the comments to see if any of them needed clarification.  Once the meanings of all of the comments were understood, each individual group member took turns arranging the notes into categories, without talking.  Each group member was given the opportunity to rearrange the columns of Post-It notes.  This continued until stable columns were formed.  The group then decided on a title containing three or less words for each column.  See Figure 2 for the resulting Affinity Diagram.  From the results of the Affinity Diagram, it was decided that future In-Services would be conducted, a technology support network would be created, surveys would be conducted, and an evaluation procedure would be created.  Miss VanSoest stated that the members of the Technology Committee were some of the most experienced technology users in the school, and probably not the ones desiring further assistance.  She suggested that they seek input from the entire faculty on how to improve on past In-Services to better meet the needs of the teachers.  Mrs. Bosworth agreed that it would be a great idea and suggested using Plus/Delta in order to look at the positives and the negatives of the past In-Services to decide what could be improved.  She also offered to compile the results of the Plus/Delta and email them to each of the committee members to look over before the next meeting.  See Figure 3 for the compiled results of the Plus/Delta.  Due to the fact that it was getting late, Mr. Johnson said that they would close the meeting for the day and reconvene in three weeks to look at the results of the Plus/Delta and continue on to the next phase, Analyzing the Process.  Everyone checked their calendars and agreed to meet on September 12 immediately after school in the distance learning lab of the Technology Building.  There was a home football game that night and therefore, no football practice, enabling the football coaches to attend.  A two hour time limit was set for the meeting to allow everyone to get home and back in time for the football game. 

 

Figure 1 

Brainstorming Results
  • Pair experienced/less experienced technology users
  • In-Service on technology use
  • In-Service on ways to integrate technology
  • Early release time provided for In-Service
  • Provide network of technology assistance
  • Survey on type of help needed
  • Survey what technology is already used
  • Survey how technology is already integrated
  • Stipend for those conducting In-Service
  • Who will be in charge of In-Services
  • How do we evaluate progress?
  • Choose convenient time for training
  • Different skills expected from different users?
  • High School students assist inexperienced teachers
  • How many times for In-Service?
  • Frequent meetings/emails to keep on mind
  • Email websites/suggestions for technology integration
  • Recognition for teachers helping teachers
  • Request In-Service help from Mid-Central Coop
  • Publicize online training courses – bulletin/email
  • Time off for teachers taking workshops
  • Stipend for teachers developing online training modules
  • Stipend for unique technology integrations
  • Training on use of DDN
  • Training on use of Digital Curriculum
  • Training on Marco Polo

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2

Affinity Diagram

Provide

In-Services

Conduct Surveys

Technology Support Network

Recognition, Stipends, & Time Off

In-Service on technology use

Survey on type of help needed

Pair experienced/less experienced technology users

Stipend for those conducting In-Service

In-Service on ways to integrate technology

Survey what technology is already used

Provide network of technology assistance

Recognition for teachers helping teachers

Early release time provided for In-Service

Survey how technology is already integrated

High School students assist inexperienced teachers

Stipend for teachers developing online training modules

Who will be in charge of In-Services?

 

Frequent meetings/emails to keep on mind

Stipend for unique technology integrations

Training on use of DDN

 

Email websites/suggestions for technology integration

Time off for teachers taking workshops

 

Training on use of digital curriculum

 

Publicize online training courses – bulletin/email

 

 

Choose convenient time for training

 

 

 

How many times for In-Service?

 

 

 

Training on Marco Polo

 

 

 

Request In-Service help from Mid-Central Coop

 

 

 

Expectations & Evaluations

 

Different skills expected from different users?

 

How do we evaluate progress?

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 

Plus/Delta Results Evaluating Past In-Services

Plus

Delta

When In-Service time is provided, I don’t have to use my own planning or personal time.

Everyone is on a different level, so it is difficult to keep everyone on task

When In-Services are provided by our own staff members, I know who to contact for future help.

Early release for an hour or two isn’t enough to actually develop a lesson plan for integrating technology

Full day or half day In-Services give enough time to learn a new skill and practice it. 

When the In-Service is over, everyone goes back to doing things their own way unless a project or evaluation is required.

Handouts with Step-by-Step information and web resources have been helpful.

When we have early releases for In-Services, I am tired at the end of the day and all I can think about is the work that has to be done in my room before I can go home.

 

After an In-Service is over, I forget what I learned how to do unless I have more time to practice.

 

It is difficult for someone teaching in a different curriculum area to help me come up with lessons incorporating technology.

 

 

For Analyzing a Process: 

    The second meeting of the Technology Committee took place after school on September 12.  As promised, Mrs. Bosworth had compiled and emailed the results of the Plus/Delta completed by the staff members for each of the committee members to review before the meeting.  Mr. Johnson opened the meeting by stating that the purpose of the meeting was to review the Affinity Diagram from the previous meeting and the Plus/Delta completed by the faculty members to analyze what could be done to improve future In-Services concerning technology integration.  Mrs. Nightingale suggested using a Force Field Analysis to better understand the forces that affect the success of an In-Service.  All members agreed that this would help the committee to come up with ideas for improvements in conducting the upcoming In-Services.  Mrs. Nightingale volunteered to record the driving and restraining forces on the whiteboard in the front of the room.  Many of the items listed responded directly to the Plus/Delta and the Affinity Diagram previously made.  See Figure 4 for the results of the Force Field Analysis.  To allow all faculty members to be part of the planning for future In-Services, it was decided to send out a survey to all the faculty members.  It would contain questions which would help to drive the technology committee in planning the upcoming In-Services.  Mr. Kolousek and Mr. Doering volunteered to draw up the survey and email it to all the committee members for final approval.  Anyone with suggestions to include on the survey was to contact Mr. Kolousek by September 16 so that the survey could be completed and the results compiled in time for the next meeting.  Due to the fact that much discussion took place at this meeting and the two hour time limit was near its end, the meeting was adjourned.  Before leaving everyone checked their schedules and it was decided that the next meeting would be held on September 22 at 8:15 in the distance learning lab in the technology building.  An In-Service was already scheduled for that day, and a portion of the time would be utilized for the Technology Committee to meet.  A two hour time limit was again set because all staff members were expected to attend the session presented by a guest speaker starting at 10:30 AM.

 

Figure 4 

Force Field Analysis: Forces that affect the success of an In-Service

Driving Forces

Restraining Forces

Teachers are more willing to learn something new when they are part of the planning process.

When early releases are utilized, teachers are tired at the end of the day and worried about other work that needs to be done.

A handout of skills learned at the In-Service provides a resource for later use.

Teachers don’t like to be forced to change their ways of teaching to learn new teaching methods.

A technology support network is developed with the trainers and other participants.

When the In-Service is over, I forget what I learned unless I have additional time to practice.

The information/skills taught at an In-Service need to be something that will be useful to me.

Sometimes I already know how to do the skills being taught at an In-Service, so it is a waste of time for me.

For Planning and Decision Making:

     The third meeting was held on September 22 at 8:15 AM for the purpose of planning and decision making as to what steps would be taken to help teachers integrate technology into their classrooms.  A Matrix Diagram was chosen to compare, organize and show a relationship among the qualities of a successful In-Service.  The first item of business was to identify the sets of data to be compared.  After much discussion, it was decided to use the titles from the Affinity Diagram, except for the Surveys which had already been conducted.  They would be compared to two criteria, Impact on the Problem, and Ease of Implementation.  The results of the Matrix Diagram can be found in Figure 5.  From the diagram it was easy to see that creating a technology support network would have the highest impact and ease of implementation.  Providing In-Services followed closely behind.  It was decided to start with implementing those two areas.  Mr. Hoffman stated that he would like to see some type of evaluation to document technology integration.  He also said that it might make it easier for the teachers if they could see the criteria to be evaluated before they begin working on their lesson plans, so that they would know what was expected of them.  He further stated that it would be easier for an evaluator to be unbiased if there was a specific set of criteria to evaluate.  Mrs. Nightingale added that information taken from the evaluations could be useful in analyzing the data at the end of the school year and in conducting future training sessions.  After hearing these arguments, the other team members agreed.  Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Kolousek volunteered to come up with an Evaluation Form or Rubric to document technology integration into the classrooms and email it to the committee members for review and final approval.  Because providing stipends and time off from school involved money and school board action for school releases, it was decided that the two administrators would talk to the board and possibly try to come up with something for next year.  There were already two full days of In-Service scheduled into the school year, and they would be used for Technology Integration into the Curriculum.  Mr. Johnson said that he would also talk to the Mid-Central Coop Board to see if they would be willing to conduct any training sessions to the area schools.  The next logical step in the process was to write up an Action Plan.  After reviewing the data collected thus far, it was fairly simple to come up with a plan.  The scheduled date for the first In-Service was October 25, so the team was anxious to get something into place by then.  The Action Plan can be seen in Figure 6. 

 

 

Figure 5

Matrix Diagram 

Suggestion:

Impact on the Problem

Ease of Implementation

 

Tally of Votes

Low    Medium   High

Tally of Votes

Low    Medium   High

Total

Points

Provide In-Services

 0         2          7

 0         4          5

48

Create Technology Support Network

 0         0          9      

 0         0          9      

54

Provide Recognition, Stipends, & Time Off

0          6          3

 6         3          0

33

Create Evaluations to Document Technology Integration

2          6          1

 0         8           1

36

  Point Values:   Low = 1 point    Medium = 2 points    High = 3 points

 

 

Figure 6 

Action Plan for Technology Integration into the Curriculum

What?

How?

Who?

When?

Create technology support network

*By pairing experienced and inexperienced technology users at the first In-Service for year long buddy system.

*By releasing certain high school students recommended by the computer teacher from study hall to assist teachers with technology use, provided that their homework is done and grades are kept up.  Teachers may sign up to receive student help in the secretary’s office at least one day in advance.

* Frequent emails listing websites and/ or suggestions for technology integration

*Emails publicizing online or DDN training courses

*Members of the Technology Committee

 

 

 

 

*Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Kolousek    

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*At the first In-Service, all teachers will be invited to share websites and/or suggestions for technology integration by writing them in a notebook in the school secretary’s office.  Every Monday morning she will email any contributions to the entire faculty.  The same will be done to publicize online or DDN training courses.

                       

October 25, 2003 à

Ongoing for the remainder for the year

 

 

 

Immediately à Ongoing for the remainder of the year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* October 25, 2003 à Ongoing for the remainder for the year

 

Provide a full day In-Service on Integrating Technology into the Curriculum

Morning Session: Step-by-Step handouts of common computer tasks will be provided. Teachers will be broken up into small groups to work on skills, depending on what they answered on their surveys.   They will reconvene as a large group, where buddies will be assigned for year long communication.  Websites, Web Quests, and suggestions for technology integration will be shared by the committee. 

Afternoon session:  Teachers will work together with their technology buddies to come up with a plan for integrating technology into at least one lesson.  Teachers will be given the evaluation form that will be used to evaluate their lesson by one administrator and their technology buddy to use as a guide when preparing the lesson.

Members of the Technology Committee, with Mr. Schroeder and Mrs. Nightingale heading the committee.

October 25, 2003

Presenting Lessons to be Evaluated

The teacher will invite the corresponding administrator and their technology buddy to visit their classroom when they present the lesson which integrates technology.  A classroom aide will be provided to substitute while the buddy is doing the observation.  The three will meet within one week of the observation to discuss what went well and suggestions for improvement or enhancement.

All teachers, both experienced and inexperienced

To be arranged with the corresponding administrator and their technology buddy, but must be completed by November 26, 2003.

Provide a full day In-Service on Integrating Technology into the Curriculum

Morning Session:  Discussion

Divide into small groups to learn technology skills based on survey completed prior to this session, including use of the V-Tel

Afternoon Session: 

Marco Polo training Digital Curriculum training

Looking at Web Quests taken from a list provided by the Technology Committee

*Teachers will be expected to integrate one of the following into their curriculum:  Present or receive over the DDN, Marco Polo, Digital Curriculum, or a Web Quest.  They will again be evaluated by an administrator and their technology buddy.

Technology Committee, headed by Mr. Doering, and Mr. Kolousek, with Mrs. Dodds (High School English teacher) assisting with the Marco Polo training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*All teachers

January 20, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be arranged by the corresponding administrator and technology buddy, but must be completed by March 5, 2003.

 

 

For Analyzing Data:

     The next meeting of the Technology Committee took place on May 19 at 3:45 in the distance learning lab of the Technology Building.  Its purpose was to analyze the data collected that documented technology integration.  A run chart was used to show technology integration.  As you can see in Figure 7, there are high points immediately following the two In-Services, and a steady increase during the last two months of school.  This shows that the In-Services did indeed do what they intended, to increase technology integration into the curriculum. 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7:  Run Chart

 


Examples of Data Collected

 

For Generating and Organizing Data:

Figure 1:  Brainstorming

Figure 2:  Affinity Diagram

Figure 3:  Plus Delta

 

For Analyzing a Process:

Figure 4:  Force Field Analysis

 

For Planning and Decision Making:

Figure 5:  Matrix Diagram

Figure 6:  Action Plan

 

For Analyzing Data:

Figure 7:  Run Chart



 

Problem Solving Using a Systems Approach

     Using the Systems Approach to Problem Solving allows you to see the complete picture, not just a collection of parts.  Moving away from education’s collection of parts to Dr. Deming’s quality system requires an aim.  A precise, all-encompassing aim is essential to beginning the process of educational improvement.  How do we know that improvement has occurred?  Two indicators must be present, fewer failures and more successes. Improvement must bring positive change to the system as a whole without bringing negative change to other parts of the system.  Continual improvement is the driving force of Total Quality Management.

     The tools of TQM were used throughout this problem solving process.  The tools allowed everyone involved to have a stake in each stage, the idea generation, organization, analyzing, decision making, and planning processes.  The PDSA cycle is the basis for continual improvement of the learning/teaching process.  Quality tools are used within the PDSA cycle to (1) define the system, (2) assess the current situation, (3) analyze causes, (4) try out an improvement theory, (5) study the results, (6) standardize the improvement; and (7) plan for continuous improvement.

     Brainstorming, an Affinity Diagram, and Plus/Delta were all used in the Generating and Organizing Ideas Phase in the above example of using TQM philosophy and tools to achieve a school technology goal.  Brainstorming is a good way for all members of the group to freely contribute their ideas without certain members dominating the discussion.  An Affinity Diagram was used to organize the ideas generated by the Brainstorming activity into categories.  Plus/Delta was used to look at the positives and negatives of past In-Services to see what worked well and what could be improved upon.  It also gave the entire faculty an opportunity to take part in the improvement process.  A Force Field Analysis was used during the Analyzing a Process stage to better understand the forces that affect the success of an In-Service.  This helped the committee to come up with ideas for improvements in conducting the In-Services.  A Matrix Diagram and Action Plan were used in the Planning and Decision Making stage.  The Affinity Diagram compared two criteria, Impact on the Problem, and Ease of Implementation.  The results of the Matrix Diagram made it easy to see that creating a technology support network would have the highest impact and ease of implementation.  Providing In-Services followed closely behind.  It was decided to start with implementing those two areas.  The Action Plan was used to help formalize the group's plans.  For each goal a plan was developed as to how that goal would be reached, who would be responsible to see that the goal is reached, and when the goal would be achieved.  Finally, a Run Chart was used to show documentation of technology integration.  From the Run Chart it was easy to see that improvement had taken place.  The next step will be to start the process all over again, continually aiming for improvement.