My take on the Dias (1999) reading that everyone is commenting on .....

After reading a number of other students blogs I have take the time to read the reading : Dias, L. B. (1999)
As per my earlier comments about the relevance of these readings towards my current professional life, this reading touches on aspects of the challenges I am currently encountering with regards curriculum integration.
Dias, L. B. (1999) suggests that saying the computer is a tool is not a good approach. I inaptly took offense at that as that is precisely the phrase I have used time and time again over the last 2 years. Fortunately this is explained because it “enables curriculum developers to continue implementing traditional, subject-based, teacher-directed instructional plans where “ the computer environment remains peripheral, an add-on’ in space and time” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
This neatly explained why with some staff I am struggling to shift them past the elearning event or topic based product production modus operand.
The ideal is stated as “Instead, technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning.” (Dias, L. B. 1999. p11.)
I believe that this is an ideal statement and goal.
I was pleased to note the barriers towards this were discussed and have found that the access to resources as being a easily identifiable and extremely important barrier. All of my schools have made significant progress towards true integration as they have broken down large COWs or ICT suites and raised the amount of permanent desktops per room. We have also broken cows down into calfs as 5 laptops in a movable unit create the situation for true integration into the teachers program rather than the all doing the same thing approach which was happening when the COW was timetabled for the room. This is weighted though by the teachers phase of adoption (Dias,1999) and I believe that to place to higher change expectation on a teacher to soon will have a negative impact of reinforcing the too hard stereo type.
I have found that leaders do have a grasp of the impact of change as a barrier but merely as a reference to the expected resistance. (Dias,1999) I think that the true level of effort that becoming a eteacher for elearners should be better planned for. the expected time scale and rate of change expectation has to be carefully managed. The ministry ICTPD contracts reflect this by being 3 yrs. I believe that this should be a minimum with the option of an extension to 5 yrs. Our contract will be entering the 3rd and final year next year, one of our main goals will be strategically planning for the PD to continue post the cluster finishing. I am aware of a few schools that have continued to fund a facilitator well beyond the contract finishing.
Dias (1999) states that change will happen under the following conditions, Relative Advantage, Observiblity, Compatibility, Complexity, Trainability. I would suggest that although the above are all important factors especially in my observation the relative advantage, I believe that another main reason for change has been external pressure, e.g. elearning valued, expected and given prominence and importance by the school leadership has made a large impact on the positive external pressure for change. All the staff throughout the cluster must have elearning goals embedded into their appraisal.
Dias (1999) has ideas on the style and type of classroom in which elearning integration can occur, Active, Constructive, Collaborative, Intentional, Conversational, Contextulized, and Reflective. These are perhaps the basis for elearning observations during elearning appraisal observations rather than the current model we have been using. I will discuss this with my lead teachers during my next team meeting.

Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21.