University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

(USC Thesis Other)

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPLEMENTATION OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY:
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION IN A CALIFORNIA MIDDLE SCHOOL
by
Alane L. Calhoun
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2003
Copright 2003 Alane L. Calhoun
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UMI Number: 3117239
Copyright 2003 by
Calhoun, Alane L.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3117239
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
Alane Lorae Calhoun
under the direction of h___ Dissertation Committee, and
approved by all members of the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School
o f Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
D o c to r o f E d u c a t io n
May 16, 2003
'Base
Dean
Dissertation Committee
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any dissertation, particularly a dissertation based on a qualitative study, is the product of
collaboration. In my case this is especially true. I want to express my deepest
appreciation to my parallel dissertation partners: Scott Price, Gabriela Mafi, Anim Mener,
Tim Stowe, Gary McGuigan, Roberta Zapf, and Ken Witte. Their insights, collegiality,
and anecdotes gave depth and breadth to this work. I received valuable advice on my
research and feedback on my dissertation from my committee chair, Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus, and committee members, Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke. I respect
and treasure their wisdom. I would also like to express love and gratitude to my family,
John and Marion Calhoun and Osaro and Sheryn Ngofa, for always supporting me as a
student and, more importantly, as a person. This work is dedicated to my niece and
nephew, Haley and Jason Ngofa. Through this effort I hope to instill in them the lesson
that hard work leads to accomplishment and success.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES.......................... viii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY.......................................................................1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
The Statement of the Problem......................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................ 8
The Importance of the Study........................ 9
Limitations......................................................................................................................10
Delimitations...................................................................................................................11
Assumptions....................................................................................................................11
Definitions...................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................15
Introduction.....................................................................................................................15
Policy Development and Implementation....................................................................15
The Role of the Federal Government in Education 16
The Role of the State Government in Education 19
The Role of the Local Government in Education 20
Policy and Educational Reform 21
Policy Implementation and Change 23
Technology Policy and Implementation.......................................................................32
The Difficulties of Implementing Education Technology Policy.................... 40
Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER ID: METHODOLOGY....................................... 48
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 48
Sample and Population...................................................................................................49
District and School......................................................................................................... 49
District Leaders...............................................................................................................50
Site Administrators ........................................................................................... 50
Teaching Staff................................................................................................................. 51
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................51
The Framework for the First Research Question 52
The Framework for the Second Research Question 53
The Framework for the Third Research Question 53
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Data Collection Instruments ............ 54
Review of Written Documents 54
District Administrator Interview Guide 54
District Administrator Questionnaire 55
Site Administrator Interview Guide 55
Site Administrator Questionnaire 55
Influence Mapping 56
Teacher Interview Guide 56
Teacher Questionnaire 56
Researcher Rating Forms 57
Levels of Technology Implementation 57
Stages of Concern 58
Reliability.................. ..........58
Data Collection ......................... .....................59
Data Analysis.................... 60
Conclusion............... ......62
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS............... 63
Introduction................................................................... .........63
Research Question One ....... 63
The Harbor View Unified School District Technology Plan 64
Area I: Curriculum 67
Area II: Professional Development 70
Area III: Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support and Software 74
Area IV: Funding and Budget 78
Area V: Monitoring and Evaluation 81
Influence Mapping 84
Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy, Programs, and Plans 90
Findings for Technology Questionnaire 93
Summary ofFindings for Research Question One 100
Research Question Two.. ............... 102
Findings For Researcher Rating Form: ‘Technology Implementation
Variables” 103
Findings for Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) 104
Teacher 1 - General Program 106
Teacher 2 - General Program 106
Teacher 3 - ATM Program 106
Teacher 4 - ATM Pro gram 106
Teacher 5 - General Program 107
Teacher 6 - ATM Program 107
Findings for the Stages of Concern Survey 108
Findings For Researcher Rating Form: “Technology Policy and
Implementation” 111
Administrator Techno logy Questionnaire 118
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 120
Research Question Three...........................................................................................122
Findings from Interviews 122
Findings for Researcher Rating Form: Technology Policy and Implementation
Match 125
Summary......................................... ...........................................................................135
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS.................. ............ 139
Summary.....................................................................................................................139
Conclusions................................................................................................................ 141
Implications................................................................................................................145
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................148
APPENDIX I: Policy Forms..............................................................................................154
Technology Plan Conceptual Framework................................................................ 155
Researcher Rating Form: Levels of Technology Implementation Variables......... 171
Researcher Rating Form: Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy, Programs, and
Plans............................................................................................................................ 174
APPENDIX II: Implementation Forms............................................................................. 177
District Leader Interview Guide.................................................................... 178
School Site Administrator Interview Guide.............................................................. 183
Teacher Interview Guide...................................................................................... 189
District Technology Plan - Stages of Concern Teacher Questionnaire....................195
Teacher Questionnaire-Technology Study................................................................ 201
APPENDIX III - Consent Forms .......................................................... ...................205
Teacher Survey Cover Letter.................................................................................. 206
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research......................................................... 207
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Enrollment Overview................ .....49
Table 2 Demographics Overview................. 50
Table 3 The Relationship of the Research Questions to the Data................................ 61
Table 4 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Curriculum................................................67
Table 5 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Curriculum ..............................69
Table 6 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Professional Development...................... 70
Table 7 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Professional Development................. 72
Table 8 Technology Plan Design. Ratings - Infrastructure. Hardware.
Technology Support and Software .............................................. 74
Table 9 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Infrastructure, Hardware.
..................................................................................77
Table 10 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Funding and Budget.............................. 78
Table 11 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Funding and Budget....................... . 81
Table 12 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Monitoring and Evaluation................... 82
lable,, 13. R.^earcher JM IagJ^graggdjScores^^ ............. 84
Table 14 Results of influence Mapping - Average Rank..of Influence.......................88
Table 15 Researcher Rating Averages - Teacher Knowledge of Technology
Policy. Programs, and Plans.................................................................................... 91
Table 16 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology in the
Classroom............................................................ 94
Table 17 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology in the
School.................. 96
Table 18 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology and the
District .................................... 97
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
vii
Table 19 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology and the
State and Nation .........................................................................................................99
Table 20 Technology Plan Component Averaged Scores .... . 101
Table 21 Researcher Rating Averages for "Technology Implementation
Variables”.......................................................................... 103
Table 22 Stages of Concern Survey Responses bv Average and Frequency................109
Table 23 Researcher Rating - Curriculum....................................................................112
Table 24 Researcher Rating - Professional Development ......... 114
Table 25 Reasearcher Rating - Infrastructure. Hardware. Technical Support
and Software ....... 115
Table 26 Researcher Rating - Funding and Budget................. 116
Table 27 Researcher Rating - Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 117
Table Site 28 Administrator Questionnaire - Perceptions of Policy at District.
State, and National Levels............................................................................................. 118
Table 29 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Curriculum 126
Table 30 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Professional
Development...................................................................................................................128
Table 31 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Infrastructure.
Hardware, Technical Support, and Software................................................................. 130
Table 32 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Funding and
Budget.......................... 131
Table 33 Technology Plan and implementation Relationship: Monitoring and
Evaluation. ................................................ 133
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Questions 1-11 Category Averages - Technology in the Classroom .......... 93
Figure 2 Questions 12-18 Category Averages - Technology in the School .....................95
Figure 3 Questions 19-24 Category Averages - Technology and the District...................97
Figure 4 Questions 25-28 Category Averages - Technology and the State and
Nation....................................................................................... 99
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ABSTRACT
This study focused on issues that educators face in integrating technology in
schools. The study examined crucial elements of technology design. In addition, it
sought to discover the relationship between policy, plan, implementation, and classroom
use of technology. This study focused on one district in Southern California and one
school within that district. The district and school were selected on the basis of (a) having
a county-approved technology plan, (b) having implemented the plan, and (c) being a
“lighthouse” school in the area of educational technology. Case study research was
conducted using review of written documents, the administration of questionnaires and
surveys, and the interview process.
The data indicated that as school districts create and then begin to implement their
unique technology plans, some areas become more troubling than others. Specifically,
this study suggested that integrating technology into curriculum may be among the most
difficult tasks that administrators and teachers must confront. A second challenge is the
creation of sufficient professional development opportunities for teachers, opportunities
that the literature reveals are needed to overcome fear of technology and facilitate
adoption. The study also suggested that a lack of professional development may be at
work in inhibiting movement of teachers from one “Stage of Concern” to another. For a
majority of the teachers in the target school district and the target school site, technology
continues to represent a challenge that has yet to be mastered.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
It seems every week there is a new story in the media concerning the state of
education in the United States. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) indicated that the math skills of American students were far lower than those of
students in other industrialized nations (USDOE, 2000). Many of our students do not
know how to find Mexico on a map, have difficulties problem solving, and test scores
continue to decline. Reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) suggest that not only is there a problem with education in the nation, but in
California in particular (Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata & Williamson, 2000). Proposed
solutions to this troubling problem have been class size reduction, increased requirements
(testing) for students and teachers, charter schools, and the ever-present threat of school
vouchers.
The integration of technology into schools has also been suggested as a way to
improve the educational system. Many politicians on both sides of the spectrum support
the need for reform in education. The current education reform movement started with
the United States Department of Education’s 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform, which warned that a “rising tide of mediocrity”
threatened the schools. The report was the impetus behind a national effort to change the
public schools. In 1990, the National Educational Goals Panel (NEGP) issued six
national educational goals (later expanded to eight) that called for, among other things, an
increase in student achievement, high school completion, and teacher education in
American schools in response to the rising concern about the state of education.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2
Successfully educating all American children became a focus for the nation. Countless
commissions, panels, and recommendations were created. A common thread among
them all is the need for change and a particular push towards the integration of
educational technology.
The California Department of Education (CDOE) was not far behind and
published various documents that state the need for reform. It’s Elementary! Elementary
Grades Task Force Report, Caught in the Middle: Educational Reform for Young
Adolescents in California Public Schools, and Second to None: A Vision of the New
California High School all suggest the need for the incorporation of technology in
education. The CDOE states that the tools for teaching are more than chalkboard and
chalk. Today they include computers, scanners, the Internet, software, and email.
Politicians and policymakers are not the only ones singing the praises of
educational technology. Researchers, too, are jumping on the bandwagon. Many
researchers have studied the impact of technology on student performance, and in some
cases have reported some remarkable results. Others assert that technology does very
little to improve student achievement. Whether the benefits will be as significant as some
school boards, politicians, and researchers predict in the end may not even matter. The
reality is that computers are transforming the business world. So in turn, businesses are
putting new demands on the educational system to produce students who can survive in
this Information Age. Schools are encountering a great deal of pressure from parents,
businesses, and society as a whole to integrate computer technology into classrooms,
because as Bromley & Apple (1998) indicate, within our society in general, “The
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3
computer functions as a symbol of the quality of education children are receiving.”
Furthermore, as Chapman (2000) points out, exposure to computers is a necessary and
important element in contemporary education because of the critical role of this
technology in today’s economy and society.
As suggested, the effectiveness of computers in increasing student achievement is
controversial. Early belief held that the computer would cure the myriad of educational
ills that schools face. Teachers and policymakers viewed technology as a key to
educational reform particularly to assist high-poverty and low-achieving schools. In
analyzing trends among low-achieving students, one is confronted by the unacceptable
achievement gap between white and minority students (U.S.D.O.E., 2001). The
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recognizes that the challenge
facing America’s schools is the empowerment o f “all” children to function effectively in
their future, which is marked increasingly with change, information growth, and evolving
technologies. It stated that “technology is a powerful tool with enormous potential for
paving high-speed highways capable of providing learning opportunities for all” (2000).
Other supporters asserted that the computer was the tool needed for intervention; to
provide a new way to instruct students; to engage and motivate pupils; and to facilitate
learning for students, including low-achieving ones. However, a decade after computers
hit schools, many minority students are still struggling, thus educators are wondering if
the promise of technology has been or can be achieved.
New emphasis has been placed on accountability since the Public Schools
Accountability Act was signed into law in California in April 1999. This act mandated
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4
that when schools fall short of the set expectations in regards to student achievement,
the state may intervene - first with assistance and later with sanctions (EdSource, 2001).
Empirical research in educational technology has been inconclusive, yet many axe still
lauding the computer as a cure-all for the problems in America’s public schools. Many
believe that technology integration will improve student achievement. With the current
push towards accountability, the pressure is on. If the promise of technology to increase
student learning and ultimately achievement is legitimate, this is the time for schools to
prove it.
High stakes testing like the High School Exit Exam has generated new discussion
about standards-based instruction. Schools are being pressured to increase standardized
test scores (namely the Academic Performance Index). Districts are in a frenzy to
purchase software that will assist teachers in helping students meet state standards. Over
the past four years, the nation has spent approximately $5 billion annually (Archer, 2000)
on educational technology. Kleiman (2001) estimated even higher amounts stating that
in 1999, educators spent $6.9 billion. Behind this spending frenzy is the belief that
computer programs may positively affect academic performance.
Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson (1994) found that technology as a media can
be a cognitive tool that, when used correctly, can assist the learner in the construction of
knowledge. Furthermore, the argument hailed in these circles is that the utilization of
technology enhances students’ cognitive development thus equipping students with the
skills necessary to meet rigorous national and state standards. Afterall, schools are being
held accountable to these standards. As a result, school boards are now looking at
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5
technology designs for their districts. The design will need to be a comprehensive one
that addresses not only hardware and software, but also instruction and assessment.
According to the California Department of Education (2001), a plan to integrate
technology into the curriculum should have the following five essential components:
Curriculum
Professional Development
Infrastructure, Hardware, Technical Support, and Software
Funding and Budget
Monitoring and Evaluation.
These five essential componenets of the state’s model plan parallel the shift
towards a design supporting technology integration instead of isolated uses of
technology. According to Education Code Section 51871.5, enacted by Assembly Bill
598, districts in California will be required to have a plan that follows this model in order
to receive funding (CDE, 2001). Districts must also address the issue of design in order
to meet what the United States Department of Education (2000) has established as
National Educational Technology Goals. These are:
> All students and teachers will have access to information technology in their
classrooms, schools, communities, and homes.
> All teachers will use technology effectively to help students achieve high
academic standards.
> All students will have technology and information literacy skills.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6
> Research and evaluation will improve the next generation of technology
applications for teaching and learning.
> Digital content and networked applications will transform teaching and learning.
Technology is being incorporated into districts in various ways and to varied
degrees. New policy and national technology standards are gaining support among
educators. Schools are expected to utilize technology to aide students in mastering
content area standards. In the past, most computer programs have failed to improve
student learning, mainly because of poor implementation strategies. This is in part due to
inadequate professional development. There is a body of knowledge about how districts
and teachers deal with the change process when implementing an innovation, in this case
technology. The Concems-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) provides a conceptual
framework for facilitating implementation (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973). CBAM was
based on the premise that teachers experience developmental stages and levels as they
became increasingly skilled in using educational innovations. This model defined
adoption as a growth process. As an innovation such as technology was implemented,
teachers experienced a sequence of concerns. When a concems-based approach was
used, change facilitators worked with teachers to address their emerging and evolving
needs. In this manner, not only was change viewed as a process, but the personal side of
change as experienced by teachers was taken into consideration. According to the
CBAM model, the Stages of Concern (SoC) and Levels ofUse (LoU) served as a guide
in the implementation process. One of the strengths of the concems-based approach was
that it emphasized understanding teachers’ attitudes and skills so that professional
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
development could be directly related to what teachers perceived they needed. This
model allowed teachers to gradually and effectively implement new technology into
curriculum, unlike the kind of change that gets shoved into the face of surprised and
confused staff members who then “shut down,” never even attempting to implement the
innovation. Students indirectly benefit from this process because teachers whose
concerns have been addressed build self-efficacy with the innovation and students pick
up on that, thus possibly building their own confidence.
The Statement of the Problem
Our society’s increasing dependency on technology and information processing is
an indication that providing students with computer literacy is no longer optional, but
required. Schools provide technology based on the belief that they have a responsibility
to produce workers who can use technology in ways that will help America compete in
the global economy. An additional impetus is that schools expect that computers can
positively affect students’ learning. Both motivations have made the computer a very
popular tool. The popularity of the computer is causing a shift in policy decision-making.
Policymakers are beginning to look at the overall design for technology. Schools
have moved beyond the excitement generated by having computers in their classrooms.
The initial questions regarding infrastructure and costs involved with equipping
classrooms have taken a back seat to more difficult concerns. The concerns today deal
with meeting policy mandates, developing district designs for technology, monitoring
schools’ implementation of that design, and the impact on students in classrooms. These
concerns represent a need for change in the way schools do business. David (1994), a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8
researcher from the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project, argued that in order for
schools to realize the vision of technology as a powerful tool for learning, the
organization of school systems must change. Evidence of this change is seen in the
adoption of standards, policy shifts, and the amount of money that has been directed
towards equipping schools with technological tools. But in past years a crucial part
seems to have been unclear.. .the design and implementation of technology. Teachers
need to know what the district design is for technology. As it is today, technology in one
classroom may look very different in another classroom (within the same school).
Teachers also need to know best practices in the implementation of technology.
Politicians, policymakers, businesses, and parents need to know the impact of technology
on education. Much of the research available only touches the surface of educational
technology. It is now time to look more in depth at what really matters as it relates to
technology in schools.
Purpose of the Study
This study focused on issues that educators' face in integrating technology in
schools. It dealt with the technology design at the district and school level. The study
examined crucial elements of technology design. In addition, it sought to discover
effective ways to implement the design at the classroom level and went on further to
discover the relationship between policy, plan, implementation, and classroom use of
technology.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The research questions were as follows:
> What is the district’s current technology plan design?
> To what extent has the district technology design been implemented?
> What is the relationship between the district’s technology plan design,
implementation of the plan, and classroom use of technology?
The Importance of the Study
According to Kinnaman (1997), computers and related technologies represent the
greatest knowledge development tools in the history of the world. Computers are carriers
of powerful ideas and previously undreamed of possibilities. Computers can store,
retrieve and classify an untold quantity of information and process it at a superb rate.
Students can be challenged to be more flexible and adaptable in their thinking as they
manipulate the large quantity of information available through technology. These
intriguing possibilities of computer technology have been offset by inconclusive research
and fears.
One fear is that widespread use of computer technology will further widen the gap
between the “haves” and “have nots,” the majority and minority, the urban and suburban.
Schools must incorporate technology in the learning process so as not to exacerbate this
problem. Equity, the belief that state governments have an obligation to equalize
students’ access to educational opportunities (EdSource, 2001) must be at the forefront of
the access to technology debate. It is reasonable to assume that parents who can afford
to, will make sure that their children have the latest technological tools to access the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10
wealth of information out there whether schools take the lead or not. Schools who do a
good job at integrating computers into the curriculum may have the greatest impact on
poor students who would otherwise not have access.
Although computer use is becoming wide-spread, the jury is still out on its impact
in education. This may be in part due to the way computers are used in schools.
Obviously, if schools are using computers to simply teach students how to use them, then
only personal productivity will be benefitted. Since the goal of school is to increase
learning productivity, then this presents a problem. For learning to be positively affected,
schools must integrate technology into the curriculum. It must be used for content area
knowledge. Because many schools have not reached the “integration” level, it is difficult
to assess how effective the use of computers are on student achievement. This study is
important because it takes an in-depth look at technology implementation issues. There
will be no answer to whether or not computers are effective on student learning until
schools fully implement and integrate computers. This study revealed many of the
barrriers to the full integration of educational technology plans. Through this research,
practitioners can learn to recognize barriers and therefore plan to address those
implementation issues. Then and only then will schools find the answer to the “million
dollar” technology question.
Limitations
This study was conducted using a qualitative case study design. Review of
written documents, interviews, surveys, and questionnaires were utilized to gather data.
This presented a limitation due to the potential subjectivity of the interpretation of data
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
11
which is difficult to control for. A further limitation of this study was that the results
were limited in generalization to schools in similar public school settings.
Delimitations
Data collection took place over a three week period at a Middle School in
Southern California. The data was reviewed and studied using qualitative analysis. The
sample was purposive (not random) because the researcher sought an ethnically diverse
school at the forefront of technology integration.
Assumptions
Government leaders have established standards and recommendations for
districts’ technology designs. It is assumed that these standards and recommendations
represent best practices. Furthermore, the school used in this study was selected because
the researcher believed that It had designed and implemented a plan for the integration of
technology.
Definitions
This section provides definitions for terms used in this research study:
Academic Performance Index (API) - one of three components of California’s new
Public Schools Accountability Act, the API measures the performance of schools,
especially the academic achievement of pupils, and improvement over time. A school’s
API score is used as the basis for ranking California’s public schools.
Accountability - the notion that people or an organization should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their success or
lack of success in doing so.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12
Alignment - the degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional development, and
systems o f accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program’s objectives
and standards.
Assessment - a system for testing and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or
districts.
Collaborative Learning - group learning strategies in which members of the group of
learners are responsible for providing the content and learning experiences - members
teach each other.
Computer Assisted Design (CAD) - software disigned to facilitate computer-generated
drawings or schematics.
Constructivism - a theory and teaching strategy holding that learners actively acquire or
“construct” new knowledge by relating new information to prior experience. It contrasts
with strategies that rely primarily on passive reception of teacher-presented information.
Content standards - academic standards which describe what students should know and
be able to do in core academic subjects at each grade level.
Curriculum - the courses of study offered by a school or district. California has
developed a set of standards that are intended to guide instruction.
Curriculum Integration - the relationship between existing curriculum and technology-
based instructional materials; ideally, the technology-based resources may be
incorporated into the curriculum without requiring drastic changes in the content,
teaching methods, or curriculum objectives.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13
Digital Camera - a still or video camera that captures and stores images in digital
format.
Educational Computing and Technology - encompasses knowledge about and use of
computers and related technologies in (1) delivery, development, prescription, and
assessment of instruction; (2) effective uses of computers as an aid to problem solving;
(3) school and classroom administration; (4) educational research; (5) electronic
information access and exchange; (6) personal and professional productivity; and (7)
computer science education.
Equity - the belief that state governments have an obligation to equalize students’ access
to educational opportunities.
High School Exit Exam - beginning with the Class of 2004, California public school
students must pass the state’s new exit exam before receiving their high school diploma;
its purpose is to test whether students have mastered the academic skills necessary to
succeed in the adult world.
Integration - use of technology tools within the curriculum and instruction and across
content areas.
Internet - the Internet is the system of thousands of interconnected commercial,
academic, and government networks around the world all using common protocols to
share information.
National Assessment of Educational Progress - national test given every other year in
which a small sample of students representative of the state are tested; scores can be
compared to national averages.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14
Professional development - programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire
the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.
School boards - together with the school distrcit administration, this governing board
makes fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policy decisions.
Standards - a degree or level of achievement.
Technology-based instruction - instructional applications that involve some aspect of
computers or related technologies.
Third International Mathematics and Science Study - TIMSS is the third attempt by
educators to compare achievement in mathematics and science across nations.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
15
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Chapter II of this study presents a review of relevant literature addressing each of
the key research questions. The first section of the Chapter focuses on the actors who
determine and implement educational policy - the Federal, State, and Local governments,
their designated educational authorities, and the impact they can have on the operations
of schools. It will also discuss literature on policy development and implementation
theory. The second section moves to an analysis ofhow Federal and State policies in the
technology arena have emerged to challenge local school districts and individual schools
to develop proactive plans for using educational computers and educational software
programs in shaping curriculum. The third and final section of the review examines the
difficulties of implementing education technology policies in K-12 public schools and
identifies the key variables that impede deployment of such technologies. The focus will
center around educational constraints, financial constraints, personnel limitations, and
other factors that impact the ability to establish a strong technology program.
Policy Development and Implementation
American education policy is developed or Initiated by all levels of government -
Federal, State, and LocaL However, as Susan Fuhrman (1993) has commented, the
policy making process in the American educational system is disjointed and confusing.
Efforts to achieve systemic reform leading to such desirable outcomes as improved
academic performance, equality of opportunity and access, national performance
standards, and enhanced curriculum that utilizes information technologies (ITs) are all
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
16
part of this effort. Fuhrman (1993) noted that in systemic reforms, three conditions are
necessary:
1. ambitious outcome expectations;
2. coordination of key policies in support of outcomes; and
3. restructuring of governance systems giving schools flexibility in implementation
combined with outcome definition and accountability from the highest governance
levels.
Likewise, Marsh (1996) asserts successful reform is results focused, connected to
strong redesign of the school, and operates within a reshaped district/school relationship.
Hill (2000) believes that a major policy problem is that the local school districts have
long been forced to adopt attributes common to bureaucracies and regulated industries -
an artifact of the federal policy making process itself.
The Role of the Federal Government in Education
On the assumption that past neglect of disadvantaged students was caused by
local politics, in which their parents had few allies and little influence, federal programs
tried to change the balance of local political forces. Hill (2000) traces this development
to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary School Education Act (ESEA), which had the
effect of making schools more like standard government institutions in three critical
ways, by forcing schools to:
> become operators of programs and appliers of rules, rather than intimate
communities.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
17
> cope with a complex political environment engineered by courts, legislatures,
and bureaucracies.
> operate under constraints imposed by “flawed proxy” measure of equity which
have the effect of facilitating government oversight while interfering with
effective instruction.
Federal involvement in school policy began, legitimately, with the aftermath of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board o f Education o f Topeka, Ks., in 1954
(Hill, 2000). Federal involvement in educational policy effectively eliminated the power
of the states or local governments to enforce racial segregation in the schools and created
a policy agenda addressing the provision of equal educational opportunity for all
American students. From this admirable (and necessary) intervention forward, however,
the role of the federal government in deciding what policies, programs, curriculum, and
practices will be employed in public schools has expanded. Title I and subsequent
federal programs introduced something that schools had never before encountered:
programs and funds controlled outside the local decision-making powers. Federal
government’s power increased with policy compliance mandates and the constant threat
of pulling funds. Hill (2000) is not convinced that this expanded role has either achieved
its desired goals and objectives or improved educational outcomes. Greater regulation of
programming and placement, more categorization of students according to “special
needs” and other criteria, and fragmentation as well as specialization have been among
the (perhaps) unintended consequences of greater federal policy participation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
18
As Hill (2000) has commented, “Federal programs have deliberately put
schools under new political pressures.” Such programs have attempted to change the
balance of local political forces to foster greater inclusion of groups and stakeholders
formerly ignored or at least marginalized in local and state policy decisions and
processes. Parental involvement, special interest groups, and constituencies have
effectively added another and troublesome layer of political pressures to the environment
in which educational decision-making occurs.
Elmore and Fuhrman (1994) made the case that the federal government was
poised (in the mid-1990s) to assume a new function and role in creating standards for
curriculum policy and student performance alike. The shift was justified in terms of the
national interest, which is supported by student achievement and the creation of a
competitive, competent, and expert workforce. At the same time, Elmore and Fuhrman
(1994) also recognized that many of the forces to nationalize curriculum were state and
local in origin and that educational policy and practice have always been a product of the
interplay of local, state, and national forces. In December o f2001, United States
Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act, which reflected policy changes that
President George W. Bush generated. A U.S. Department of Education (2001) press
release noted that this new legislation vowed to meet the needs of America’s neediest
students, increase accountability, expand options for parents of disadvantaged children,
and increase flexibility and local control for states and school districts.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The Role of the State Government in Education
19
As evidenced by recent legislature, the policy making process is in a state of
change. Fowler (2000), for example, believes that a major paradigm shift is occurring
whereby local control of education is weakening and state control is increasing. Both
federalism and unitary relationships are the mechanisms fostering the decentralization of
both policymaking and implementation. Under a federalist system, power for education
is given to the states, while a state’s relationship with school districts is unitary in that the
state may dictate what the district does or even if the school district will continue to exist.
Fowler (2000) contends that since World War II, the power of states has increased
through the maturation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state
government. This process was itself an artifact of changes in the electorate, the impact of
federal programs, various constitutional or legal reforms of state governments, the growth
of the intergovernmental lobby, the fiscal crisis o f state governments, and even
globalization. The ultimate impact of these shifts, in the view of Fowler (2000), is that
local districts will become less powerful and significant in terms of policy control,
development, and oversight while the states will acquire even greater authority than they
have in the past.
Similar comments were advanced by Goertz (2001). This researcher who noted
that beginning with the Bush Administration and the development of the Goals 2000
initiative, emphasis in policy decision shifted from procedural accountability to
educational accountability. Equity has been reconceptualized as ensuring all students
access to a high-quality and free public education as opposed to providing either
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 0
supplemental or compensatory services. This, of course, has mandated a change in the
roles of federal, state and local governments in designing and implementing educational
reforms. The States were to be charged with establishing challenging and substantial
content and performance standards for all students and with providing support (financial
as well as technological and other services) to schools.
School districts and their individual community-based schools would be provided
with greater flexibility and autonomy to design appropriate curriculum and instructional
programs - thus opening the doors for local interest groups and coalitions to have a more
meaningful input in the policy process. The federal and state governments would then
align their education policies both vertically (i.e., federal to state) and horizontally (i.e.,
across programs in the U.S.). However, Goertz (2001) believes that rather than
introducing conformity and uniformity (even with respect to standards and
accountability), this paradigm shift has resulted in policy diffusion rather than cohesion.
Malen and Muncey (2000) have argued that just as the states are achieving greater
autonomy in policy areas - ranging from curriculum content to program selection to
standards and teacher accountability - the local school districts are also gaining in
influence.
The Role of the Local Government in Education
Local governments may be setting their own agendas within the larger context of
state and national standards and outcome measures. The school board and the
superintendent are the most powerful policy decision-makers at the local level and their
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
21
policy decisions have a direct impact on schools within their district. Elmore (1993)
identifies four major roles of the school district:
> to increase support for local schools
> to develop and test new ideas
> to sustain and enhance local conditions
> to adapt national and state policies to local conditions.
While the local government is experiencing some increased control in some areas,
at the same time, the state continues to make efforts to restrict local autonomy by
intensifying their bureaucratic hold with the imposition of academic standards, high-
stakes testing, accountability report requirements, and other mechanisms.
Policy and Educational Reform
Many examples can be drawn from the literature which lead to the conclusion that
with respect to policy decisions (those that do and do not directly impact upon technology
use in the schools), all three actors - the federal government, the states, and local school
authorities - play central roles. Fuhrman (1994) and Smith and O’Day (1991) all agree
that when it comes to systemic reform of education, the plethora o f often competing or
even conflicting policy mandates and school/student needs creates difficulties in bringing
about meaningful reform. Hentschke (1997) notes that it would consume entire volumes
to merely list the major laws, reports, projects, policies, analyses, grants, programs, and
so on that have emanated from Federal and State governments, school districts and
communities, educational associations, think tanks, academies, and foundations - all
aimed at school reform. School reform is a popular issues which drives today’s policy
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 2
agendas. Hentschke (1997) notes that school reform can be split into two categories:
professional and radical. Professional reform is a collection of principles, assumptions,
and associated options that is sufficiently acceptable to and supported by a significant
fraction of leaders associated with the current system of education. It constitutes the
dominant agenda for public school change, having been formulated by those close to and
in charge of the current system of public education. Radical reform, conversely, supports
charter and voucher legislative initiatives that have few if any union constraints and that
foster the creation o f new schools. Projects include lobbying for legislation to bring
about changes, as well as mounting initiative campaigns to place measures on state
ballots and school district board agendas. These efforts are led by, among others,
individual business executives, conservative educational policy organizations,
conservative politicians, parent groups that are unaffiliated with formal long-established
parent-teacher organizations, and, most recently, investment firms specializing in raising
capital to invest in for-profit educating businesses. Although both groups have different
philosophies, it is clear that they share one belief: the current public school systrem needs
to be reformed.
Kingdon (1995) describes policy development as a series of four steps:
> agenda setting
> specification o f alternatives
> authoritative choice or vote
> implementation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
23
Politicians, interest groups, and various constituencies (i.e., unions, administrators,
parents, advocacy groups and agencies, as well as the courts) all play a role in this
process of bringing issues to the policy agenda and thus developing policy. Overall,
however, Elmore (1993) argues that local boards of education and school district
administrators bear the primary responsibility for teaching and learning in our nation’s
schools; districts exist not only to oversee the ongoing, day-to-day school operation, but
also serve as the link between the schools and the policy instruments and agencies of the
state and federal governments. Districts and school assume the greatest responsibility for
policy implementation.
Policy Implementation and Change
With respect to policy implementation, several stages of evolution have occurred
over the last three or more decades. Odden (1991) argued that for many, many years,
resistance to innovation and policy shifts at all levels of government existed which
inhibited school reform. Local schools - and their district or school administrators, as
well as teachers - resisted demands for change; lacking a process for local educators to
be empowered to tailor or mold a program or policy to meet their unique needs.
McLaughlin (1991) believes that implementation research in the 1980s demonstrated that
resistance to externally mandated policy shifts and prevented reform from progressing as
anticipated. When state education policy initiatives were successful, they often related to
school finance reform, collective bargaining, minimum competency testing, and selected
improvement programs that were embraced by local school districts (Odden, 1991).
Local educators also have initiated their own policy changes in partnership with state
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 4
programs in these areas, but today, policy implementation realities are no longer rooted
in the relatively simple “lack of capacity and will” identified as impeding change in the
early implementation research (Odden, 1991).
The politics o f reform and policy implementation are seen as involving strategic
interaction where state policies are expanded and adapted to meet the needs of the school
Fuhrman (1993) contend that as demands for reform and educational improvement
continue to be expressed, district leaders and parents alike began to become more actively
involved in creating innovative responses. District leaders have become much more
proactive in terms of the development and implementation of school district policies in
response to state and national reforms, and the interpretations of these reforms at the local
level are seen as contributing to the variance in implementation of policy mandates
(Spillane, 2000).
School districts, schools, and teachers have expressed frustration with respect to
adopting and implementing new programs and policies in their district. Fullan (2001)
and Hall and Hord (2001) maintain that a number of reasons can be identified for the
failure of various programs and plans designed to improve student learning and
achievement, including:
> A lack of understanding of the change process itself
> Ineffective or inadequate implementation strategies
> Inadequate staff development
However, in recent years, schools and their staff have become more aware of
what is involved in the change process, particularly with respect to how policy becomes
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 5
implemented and institutionalized in schools. Loveless (1996) notes that change that
requires a fundamental shift in teaching practices occurs incrementally - even if helped
along by state and federal policies, professional development plans, collegial networks,
and in-service full o f fire and brimstone. Change is an intricate operation. Fullan (2001),
for example, states that there are intrinsic dilemmas in the change process that, coupled
with the “intractability o f some factors and the uniqueness of individual settings” that
make successful reform a highly complex and subtle process.
In the 1990s, there was a shift in the emphasis of educational reform from
teaching strategies and school settings, to the mindset of the educators. These included
the researchers, administrators, teachers, parents, and extended to the students themselves
that called for a new way of thinking about teaching and learning (Fullan, 1993). Fullan
(1993) reported eight conclusions concerning change:
Change is a journey; not a blueprint.
The more complex the change the less you can force it.
Problems are our friends.
Vision and strategic planning come later.
Individualism and collectivism must have equal power.
Neither centralization nor decentralization works.
Connection to a wider environment is critical for success.
Every person is a change agent.
Fullan (1999) considers that innovation involves the development and acceptance
of new beliefs and new practices and suggests that resistance to change can only be
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
26
overcome by assisting educators in recognizing and confronting their own feelings,
attitudes, and beliefs. Asking educators to undergo a shift in belief about a new program
requires that they become participants in a new paradigm. Adopting a new pedagogy or
innovation is not always without its pitfalls and difficulties. When conflicting mandates
are at work, confusion and a diffusion of effort often results.
With respect to the change process, Fullan (2001) places implementation as the
second stage in the framework of change, following initiation and preceding continuation
and assessment or the determination of outcomes. Policy implementation is the putting
into practice any idea, program, or set of activities and structures that are new or different
to the people required to change. There are nine key factors identified by Fullan (2001)
that exert a causal influence on implementation, including three categories:
characteristics of change, including need, clarity, complexity, quality/practicality; local
roles/characteristics, including those of the district, community, principal, and teachers;
and external factors, consisting of government and other agencies. These factors all
interact with one another to varying degrees to either foster or reduce resistance to change
and ultimately to determine how well a new policy mandate or program will be received.
Hall and Hord (2001) claim that it is never simply enough to develop a potentially
beneficial policy in the technology arena or in any other area impacting upon schools.
Both the nature and kind of change and the amount of assistance that is provided to the
schools affect the pattern and intensity o f concerns people experience during a period of
change. Early on, McLaughlin (1991) demonstrated that when technology shifts are at
work, schools must be structured to encourage and support as well as train staff members
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
27
who are charged with integrating technology into their classrooms. Fullan (2001), a
foil decade later, advanced this exact argument and also pointed out that integrating
technology into the classroom and into the curriculum places great demands on teachers
with respect to the acquisition of new skills and classroom redesign or organization.
Research from the literature on change substantiates the assertion that a critical
step in bringing about change is understanding teachers’ attitudes and skills. Policies are
often idealized statements of what should and ought to be accomplished. Implementation
is a human activity that requires that the actors responsible for translating policy into
practice or plans into systems be provided with the education, training, and support
needed for such a paradigm shift. Hall and Hord (2001) go on further to identify twelve
principles of change:
Change is a process, not an event.
There are significant differences in what is entailed in development and
implementation of an innovation.
An organization does not change until the individuals within it change.
Innovations come in different sizes.
Interventions are the actions and events that are key to the success of the change
process.
Although both top-down and botttom-up change can work, a horizontal
perspective is best.
Administrator leadership is essential to long-term change success.
Mandates can work.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 8
The school is the primary unit for change.
Facilitating change is a team effort.
Appropriate interventions reduce the challenge of change.
The context of the school influences the process of change.
Hall and Hord (2001) described the policy-to-practice continuum moving from
the federal to the classroom level. Federally, the President, Secretary of Education, and
Congress, may establish a broad or even a very narrow policy or mandate (e.g., ensuring
that all eighth grade students achieve a specific score in mathematics and reading on
standardized tests before advancing to secondary school). At the state level, the
governor, commissioner of education, and the legislature then translate this policy into a
set of action objectives that are passed on to individual school districts within the state.
Here, the school superintendent and board of education examine school practices and
curriculum to determine what needs to be done overall to achieve this goal. Next, the
schools themselves via their principals and site or local councils must fit the new policy
and any and all programmatic, curricular, instructional, technological, or organizational
changes into their existing practice spectrum. Finally, classroom teachers must then
incorporate any and all new strategies into their daily classroom routines. As Hall and
Hord (2001) have commented, for change to succeed, the vertical paradigm must be
replaced with a horizontal perspective in which all of the actors are viewed as being on
the same plane.
Hall, Wallace, and Dossett (1973) created the Concems-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM) as a conceptual framework for facilitating policy implementation. The CBAM
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
29
approach recommends that the facilitators of change base their decisions and
interventions on client needs and process needs rather than on their own needs. It posits
that change is a developmental process that must be sequentially approached rather than
arbitrarily imposed by an external actor. According to the CBAM model, the Stages of
Concern (SoC) and Levels of Use (LoU) are important Indicators that assist and guide
any implementation process (Hall, et al, 1973). Both the SoC and the LoU questionnaires
should be administered as assessment tools to determine what interventions or assistance
is needed to facilitate change. Failure to address key aspects of the change process can
either add years to, or even prevent, successful implementation (Hall & Hord, 2001).
CBAM has identified seven Stages of Concern, moving from the Awareness stage
and developmentally progressing to Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence,
Collaboration, and finally, to Refocusing. As Hall and Hord (2001) assert, the kinds of
concerns and the degree of their intensity regarding an innovation will vary according to
the depth of an individual’s knowledge and experience with the innovation. This
suggests that what may well inhibit teachers from succeeding in implementing a number
of policy initiatives is not merely an inbred resistance to change, but rather a lack of
adequate knowledge and expertise. The level o f knowledge and expertise will affect the
behaviors of those charged with implementing a change. Hall and Herd’s Levels of Use
concept explains this pattern. There are three levels of nonusers moving from Nonuse, to
Orientation, and to Preparation. Users progress from Mechanical Use, to Routine,
Refinement, Integration, and finally Renewal. Staff development plays a key role in
moving Nonusers to the User realm. Whether the subject of an implementation is
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3 0
technology or not, policy implementation appears to be most successful in those
schools and school districts that provide ongoing staff development and allocates
sufficient time and resources as well as supportive systems to the change process (Hall &
Hord, 2001; Haycock, 1999; and Honey, McMillan-Culp, & Carrigg, 1999).
The key actors in the educational policy development process are the federal,
state, and local governments (Goertz, 2001). However, the primary effects of state and
federal policies have been to set direction and create an impetus for change while
providing limited guidance about the substance of reforms. Most of the reform efforts
that have been undertaken in the past 10-15 years have focused on improving academic
outcomes and system accountability. Embedded within these broad goals is the use of
new technologies to enhance student learning and improve the quality of education
afforded to all American children and particularly to poor, low-achieving children
(Goertz, 2001).
Loveless (1996) summarizes the policy shift by noting that the American school
system originated as an extension of such fundamental social units as families, churches,
and communities. Over time, many waves of reform succeeded in fully institutionalizing
public schooling and schools came to operate exclusively under a formal system of public
authority. Currently, policy appears to be developed at both the federal and state levels,
while being implemented almost exclusively at the district level. New demands,
expressed as standards, goals, objectives, performance indicators, and other are being
placed on the nation’s schools.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
31
Implementing policy requirements is often frustrated by a lack of adequate
funding, availability of resources and time, a lack of leadership, and poorly structured
rewards or incentives (Fullan, 2001). While enormous pressures are applied to induce
policy shifts and foster implementation, the resources available to accomplish the change
are often insufficient to achieve desired results. Fowler (2000) as well as Malen and
Muncey (2000) make the point that states vary in their willingness to provide financial
and other support services and resource to their schools, while local school districts
(which rely heavily upon the property tax for revenues) vary significantly in terms of
their own capacity to meet reform policy objectives.
According to Goertz (2001) and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(CPRE), standards-based reform has become the common focus of federal and state
education policy. However, enormous variances have been identified with respect to the
ways in which states, districts, and schools have implemented these policies. Goertz
(2001) contends that the normal tensions that have always existed between the various
levels of government explained these variances and identify the reasons why states and
districts that have embraced the goals of standards-based reform have interpreted the
rather broad policy objectives of such reform in their own unique way. This is
particularly true in the case of technology. The next section of this review of literature
will discuss the ways in which federal and state policy is driving the greater use of
educational technology - an area in which policy and implementation are of critical
importance.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3 2
Technology Policy and Implementation
One area where federal and state policy has driven a great deal of both school
district and private sector action is in the realm of educational technology. While many
believe that technology has tremendous potential for student learning and achievement
improvement, schools have faced many difficulties and challenges in simply putting
technology in place and then integrating it effectively into instruction (Anderson, 1996;
Baker, 1999). This section of the review of literature will focus on the use of computers
in education, along with pressures, internal and external to the schools, policies regarding
computer use, and the challenges that schools face when they implement the use of
computers.
National policy, says Bishop (1993), can perhaps best be understood as exerting a
normative and standards-oriented influence over educational policy. With respect to the
national information infrastructure, for example, social goals as well technological goals
are included. Policy initiatives under the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993
call for the inclusion and cooperation of private sector businesses and industries in
bringing a technology-rich environment to local schools. Hodas (1993) examined the
deployment of technology within the schools and noted that many in government,
education, and the private sector have become convinced that technology is the key to
educational reform, particularly as standards-based reform becomes more and more
commonplace. Keeler (1996) agrees, suggesting that technology has the potential to
exert an ever-increasing impact on instructional methods, curriculum and content, and
testing as well. Since technology is at the heart of many reform efforts - and because
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
33
parents, business leaders, educators, and legislators alike regard technology as a key
feature in educational reform efforts and student achievement improvements - school
districts and administrators are under increasing pressure to purchase software and
hardware (i.e., computers, programs and Internet connections) in the expectation that
such purchases will positively affect academic performance while reducing instructional
costs (Hodas, 1999).
As Hodas (1993) notes, technology promises to make schools more effective
through manipulation of objects or processes, but this is not a value-free shift. Teachers
are worried about the mastery of computer skills, about staff reductions due to enhanced
use of technology, and are resistant to the new vision of schools and their processes that
is implicit in technology deployment. Nevertheless, as Riley, Holleman, and Roberts
(2000) have pointed out, the U.S. Department of Education (the federal policy-making
agency and a source of funding for technology programs and systems) has developed a
‘technology plan” that calls for integration of technology into the major goals of
educational reform.
Specifically, as Hart (1999) and the U.S. Department of Education (2000) have
both explained, the federal technology vision calls for funding for technology
improvements, district technology plans detailing how, when, and where computer-based
technology and programs will be integrated into educational programming and testing,
and identifying funding resources. States, says Hart (1999), are being asked to bring
technology vision and practices to the classroom, require accountability and create
technological equity to diminish the effects of the growing “digital divide.”
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
34
Glennan and Melmed (1996) also noted that in the Goals 2000, Educate
America Act, the federal role in fostering effective use o f technology in the schools is
emphasized. The U.S. Department of Education was directed to develop a long-range
technology plan that would prompt higher student achievement via technology use,
having hypothesized that educational, computer-based technologies had been found to be
capable of improving performance at all academic levels. The report also noted that
uneven performance had been exhibited by school districts that had created technology
plans or those that placed computers in classrooms or designated laboratories in their
individual schools. It was recommended that the costs of technology be incorporated into
state and local education budgets, that access to the national information structure (the
Internet) be provided, and that monitoring the benefits of technology in the educational
arena should be ongoing. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational
Technology has developed several programs over the years to help support K-12
technology programs in U.S. public schools. Those include: Preparing Tomorrow’s
Teachers to Use Technology, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund, the Star Schools Program, Learning Anywhere Anytime
Partnership (LAAP), 21st Century Community Learning Center, Support to Community-
based Technology Center, and the largest program E-Rate. Other federal programs assist
K-12 schools in technology. The California Department of Education has also created
programs and initiatives aimed at the integration of technology in schools. Those
include: The Digital High School Program, The California Technology Assistance
Program (CTAP), AB 2882, Revised Technology New Teacher Certification
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
35
Requirements, The Digital California Project, Project Support for Federal Programs,
and Student Technology Showcase. The goal of all of the above-listed technology policy
and programs is, directly or indirectly, to increase student achievement through the
integration of computers in the curriculum.
Chapman (2000) states that proponents of educational technology and computer
use have long insisted that computers help young people master basic skills and access
vital resources, motivate students to leam, and foster cognitive development. At the same
time, there are those in and out of the educational system who believe that too much
credence has been given to the potential of computers and computer programs (as well as
the Internet) to assist poorly performing students in gaining academic ground. At issue,
according to Chapman (2000), is the question of whether or not computers should be the
central focus of educational and instructional reform directed to accountability and
improved performance, or tools employed as part of a larger instructional strategy. The
Office of Technology Assessment report is a good example of policy studies promoting
the use of computers in schools as an instructional strategy. Instead of focusing on
hardware and software, this report focuses on changing teachers’ attitudes, knowledge,
and behaviors in regards to technology. At the center of effective use of instructional
technoIgy is the teacher and administrators. For students to become comfortable and
effective users of various technologies, teachers and administrators must be able to make
wise, informed decisions about technology (OTA, 1995). Taking it one step further, all
stakeholders must be involved in the implementation of technology programs.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
36
Effective technology implementation involves including all stakeholders -
teachers, administrators, and the community - in the planning process. It also requires
establishing and monitoring timelines, delegating responsibilities for planning,
identifying change facilitators, and coordinating district and state plans while providing a
fram ew ork for allocating resources fairly. Anderson (1996), along with Baker (1999),
have pointed out that the best plans for technology use are those that are comprehensive
and bring together a number of key actors. Central to the effectiveness of any technology
plan or computer assisted learning strategy, are technological supports and training for
teachers. One of the major difficulties encountered in using computer technologies
identified by Baker (1999) is the rapid technological change that renders systems and
software virtually obsolete soon after it is purchased and put into use. Given the financial
constraints that many schools face, careful technology planning is required.
Cole (1999) presented a model for the implementation of instructional technology
in schools. This model moves from planning to support and training, resource
development, and on to monitoring and evaluation. It is Cole’s (1999) opinion that poor
planning for the ways that computer technologies and programs will be linked to or
integrated within curriculum and address standards is one of the major drawbacks found
in many school district plans.
It is also important, according to Ertmer, Addison, Lane, and Ross (1999), to
recognize that teachers are often resistant to change when technology is involved. Older
teachers or teachers who are not familiar with computer technologies and programs may
exhibit a substantial amount of resistance to mandates regarding technology in the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
37
classroom. Therefore, a major barrier to implementing a technology policy requiring
enhanced use of computers is the lack of support for staff. Ertmer, et al (1999) and Ely
(1999) have each argued that before computers are simply placed in a classroom, teachers
must be trained for their use and curriculum must be modified so that the computer
programs and practices are employed in a meaningful manner.
Goldman, Cole, and Syer (1999) conducted a case study examining the ways that
teachers experience frustration and dilemmas during the implementation of computers in
their classrooms. Central to these frustrations are first, the fear of change, and secondly,
a lack of adequate training and support services. An additional variable that can and does
negatively affect the success of technology use is the issue of whether or not technologies
have a direct and meaningful connection with both curriculum and performance
requirements. All too often, technology is simply introduced for its own sake, without an
adequate understanding of how it relates to specific performance or standards objectives.
Rod Paige, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, announced on January 28,
2002 at a summit on educational technology that, “It’s not enough now to have
computers and Internet connections in schools, it’s time for the next step.” Paige
described that next step as a review of how technology can help learning in the
classroom. He asserts, “It’s pointless to integrate computers if they don’t add value to the
curriculum.” Those charged with the implementation of computers need support in
identifying ways to effectively implement educational technology.
Haycock (1999) suggests that school districts with exemplary technology
programs provide ongoing staff development, including sufficient time and resources so
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
38
that teaches may overcome any resistance to computer technology and ensure that it is
deployed in a meaningful way. Further, says Haycock (1999), school districts must
constantly scrutinize and revise their technology plans in order to be sure that
administration is actively involved and that access for both teachers and students is
supported. Teachers and librarians alike should be involved in this process.
Mills (1999), in discussing the implementation of technology plans and systems,
contends that both schools and students will not acquire gains in learner achievement
from computer technology unless an implementation system and evaluation process is in
place. This researcher examined the concerns of elementary school teachers with respect
to implementing computer delivered instruction and found that many teachers resist these
methods because of a perceived lack of adequate training or supportive resources. This
study tends to emphasize the importance of incorporating staff development into a district
technology plan.
Moersch (1995, 1996,1999) created a “Levels of Technology Implementation
(LoTi)” model to bridge the gap between technology use and instruction and to provide a
data-driven approach to staff development and technology planning. The questionnaire
generates a profile for the teacher across three domains - LoTi, personal computer use,
and current instructional practices. In the LoTi framework, Moersch (1995) proposes
seven discreet implementation levels teachers can demonstrate, ranging from Nonuse,
Awareness, Exploration, Infusion, Integration, Expansion, to Refinement. Research
involving the questionnaire has demonstrated a statistically significant correlation among
students’ academic achievement, the amount of professional development, and a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3 9
teacher’s LoTi. Additionally, Moersch (1996,1997) identified several reasons for the
lack of classroom technology implementation:
Inadequate staff development
Lack of teacher preparation time
Insufficient equipment
A basic lack of an overall vision.
These barriers to technology implementation were also examined by Newhouse
(2001) by means of the CBAM strategy. A longitudinal study throughout the 1990s was
concerned with student-owned portable computers at a secondary school. One
component of the study employed the dimensions of CBAM (described above) to assist
in developing an understanding of the implementation process. CBAM revealed that as
concerns regarding the difficulty of a change process increased, resistance to the process
also tended to increase. With respect to technology use in the classroom, Newhouse
(2001) claimed that any district level or school focused technology plan will succeed only
to the degree that teachers and other staff members value the change and the technology,
integrate it into regular classroom activities, perceive technology as supportive of both
curriculum and standards-based testing, and have access to the resources needed for their
own training in technology use.
Strudler (1996) considered the role of school-based technology coordinators as
change agents in elementary school programs. A follow-up study investigated the skills,
strategies, and outcomes associated with technology coordinators in three different
elementary school programs. Revisiting the schools after seven years, Strudler (1996)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 0
found that computer use had increased significantly in each location, largely as a
consequence o f a strong focus on professional development for teachers. However,
barriers to increased technology use were also identified in the study, including
inadequate financial and other resources and a failure in some areas to modify computer
programs and policies to mesh with standards-based assessment policies mandated by the
state and federal governments. As a result of the many barriers to successful technology
implementation, Clark (1994) asserts that while many believe technology to be the
panacea of the low student achievement problem, it has become a tarnished promise.
The Difficulties of Implementing Education Technology Policy
Valdez, McNabb, Foertsch, Anderson, Hawkes, and Raack (2000) believe that to
understand the impact of technology and its value, it is important to recognize that there
have been three distinct phases in technology uses and expectations: print automation,
the expansion of learning opportunities, and data-driven virtual learning. In each of these
phases, computers have taken on added significance, becoming tools for learner-centered
practice rather than content delivery systems. These researchers reported that technology
innovations are increasing the demands for reforms in teaching and learning approaches
that are having a significant impact on technology use expectations.
Specifically, Valdez, et al (2000) concluded that:
> Technology offers opportunities for learner-controlled, increased motivation, and
data-driven assessments tied to content standards
> Policymakers are demanding greater accountability for technology use, in part
because of resource expenditures
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
41
> The success or failure of technology is more dependent on human and
contextual factors than on hardware or software.
It is also important to recognize that the extent to which technology policies
become classroom realities is highly dependent upon the degree to which teachers are
given time and access to pertinent training for computer use as a support for learning.
Further, it is important, according to Valdez, et al (2000), to recognize that the success of
technology depends on having significant critical access to hardware and applications
that are appropriate to the learning expectations of the activity. The success or failure of
technology-enhanced learning experiences also often depends on whether the software
design and instructional methods surrounding its use are congruent.
Stating that technology helps students to learn, be creative, and become players
and communicators in the global village, McNabb (1999) emphasizes that technology
must be positioned within school-wide improvement planning. A district or school plan
should analyze technology needs and build infrastructure. It should support professional
development and establish multi-year technology funding. It must also evaluate
processes and outcomes. At the level of the individual teacher, personal vision must be
aligned with the school-wide vision for using technology. Technology must be integrated
into the curriculum, and personal professional development related to technology must be
pursued. Marsh and Rountree (1997) find that teachers and administrators express
frustration over professional development efforts that focus only on “inquiry.”
Professional development can be more productive when focused on solving common
problems, such as:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 2
> What specific measures will we use to determine if this Is working?
> What specific intervention strategies will we use for students who are not reading
at grade level?
> What are other schools doing that works?
The Marsh and Rountree (1997) model will work especially well with technology.
Teachers, particularly those who are not fully computer literate, need mechanisms to
dertermine if they are utilizing technology effectively. Teachers need to know what other
schools are doing well in the area of technology. Finally, teachers must learn strategies
to assist students who don’t function at grade-level since much o f technology consists of
student-centered activities. McNabb (1999) calls for focusing technology use on student-
centered learning and assessing learner outcomes. Parents, local businesses, and the
community must be directly involved in this process and the use of technology should
support school, district, state, and federal policy goals and objectives.
Barriers to achieving these goals and objectives include funding constraints, rapid
technological change Itself inadequate connections between technology and curriculum
and/or standards, and resistance to technology on the part of teachers (McNabb, 1999).
Overcoming these barriers requires a coordinated effort in which a number of
stakeholders participate. As Hall and Hord (2001) have suggested, change agents and
change leaders are integral to this process, but ail stakeholders in the change process must
participate and embrace technology with enthusiasm.
One example of a comprehensive state plan for education technology has been
provided by the California Department of Education (2001). The California Guide for
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 3
School Districts establishes categorical fimding from the state as well as federal Title I
funding for comprehensive school improvement planning. In order for a school to obtain
education technology funding from the state, it must have in place a local technology
plan. This plan should be developed by all stakeholders for whom the schools are a vital
public resource. It should include members of the community, parents, students,
teachers, and administrators. The plan must clearly identify how technology will be used
to support teaching and learning - in other words, it must be directly related to content
standards and curriculum. Benchmarks and timelines should be included in the plan.
The California Department of Education (2001) also strongly emphasizes that
technology training for teacher and students alike is best integrated into subject matter
programs and embedded in the classroom or educational setting. Schools that are
determined to capitalize upon the very real benefits o f computer technologies must make
the commitment to ongoing staff professional development. This will necessitate more
than a few staff development programs held randomly throughout the school year.
Financing professional development must be considered in the overall cost of
implementing a technology plan to maximize its benefits.
The costs to implement a technology program is high. It may require an increase
in spending from all levels of government: local, state, and federal. Picus and Bryan
(1997) assert that increasing the spending on education has positive effects that are not
easily quantified. The additional resources for education could be allocated for
computers in the classroom. Greater student access to information through the Internet
would provide children with virtual access to the world. As an example, computer-based
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 4
instruction can be a foundation to provide more teacher contact with marginal students,
allowing gifted students access to a variety of learning experiences. Short-term effects
include more individualized instruction, smaller class size, personal educational plans,
and increased teacher efficacy. Long-term effects could result in a better educated
workforce and, therefore, increased productivity throughout the region. Picus and Bryan
(1997) maintain that the economic impacts from education will outweigh the increased
educational expenditures today. Districts/schools need to determine their needs in the
area of technology through the creation of a technology plan paying close attention to the
funding needed to implement the program.
Loveless (1996) points out that although U.S. public schools possess over 5.8
million computers, they are not widely used in classroom instruction. The research
suggests that this is still a reality today. Schools that ambitiously acquire computers for
their classrooms often run up against insufficient electrical wiring, the absence of
telephone connections, and insufficient air conditioning to protect the machines. With
less than 15% of classrooms wired for telephones - hardly cutting edge technology - it is
a pipedream to think that most schools will soon be traveling the information
superhighway. Many researchers speak o f the possibilities o f the Internet as being almost
limitless (often in utopian tones). Wilson (1995) says that the Internet has the potential
for everything from receiving an on line diploma to students working with real life
scientific data and communicating with students in other culturse. He notes that there are
many millions o f people logged on worldwide with membership expanding at a rate of
ten percent per month. Moreover, he declares that great growth will come for students
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 5
from kindergarten to high school as long as policymakers approach and resolve the
funding barrier.
Installation of computers is only the beginning. Schools often encumber
unforeseen financial obligations by failing to factor the expense of maintenance and
obsolescence of machines into long-term technological planning. Loveless (1996)
emphasizes that procurement and installation of computers, with little thought given to
why they were needed or how they would actually be used, has resulted in many
classrooms that are “all dressed up with nowhere to go.”
The California State Board o f Education (2001) maintains that before a
technology plan is finalized, a thorough assessment of the kinds of technology and types
as well as amount o f equipment needed must be conducted. This is the only way to get
an adequate idea of fimding needs for technology. Identifying present and future needs is
key in ensuring that the technology of today will not be outmoded by tomorrow. This
may necessitate the involvement o f technology professionals who have an understanding
of developments in the field as well as educational concerns. This is not a task that
should be left solely to school administrators, who often lack the professional knowledge
and skills needed in this area.
The barriers to successful implementation o f a technology program are clearly
numerous. Anderson (1996) believes that the district should take the lead in ensuring that
individual schools are moving toward implementation of state policy. Districts and states
must work together to ensure equitable access and fair funding allocation. Each of the
critical actors in this process — schools and their staff, district administrators and
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
46
planners, and state and national policymakers - must recognize that a high level of
coordination and collaboration is required if computer technology is to truly facilitate
school reform and academic improvement. It is not enough to simply make funding and
material resources available and train teachers to use technology. It is necessary to create
a vision for how technology will be used to support school, district, state, and national
learning or performance goals and objectives.
Early on, Hodas (1993) made it clear that technology presents very real
challenges to the American public education system. Critically important changes in the
way instruction is structured or delivered have been brought about by the explosion in
information technologies. New ideas about the roles and functions of teachers have
emerged, challenging educators to rethink their own vision for their profession and their
students. Debate over the benefits of educational technologies will undoubtedly,
continue, but it seems clear that such technologies are here to stay.
Conclusion
This review of literature has moved from a discussion o f how the educational
policy process works to an examination of barriers to implementation of policy. It has
addressed specifically the implementation of computer technologies in our public schools
and the barriers to such implementation processes. As discussed, the use of computers to
enhance teaching and learning is a prominent topic in educational reform. Numerous
dismal state, national, and international comparisons have led the public to perceive that
the schools have failed to prepare our students for the workplace and to compete globally.
As a result, schools are actively seeking new approaches to student achievement with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
47
computer technology at the forefront of change. Despite the many barriers to the
successful implementation of a school technology program, our society’s increasing
dependency on technology and information processing is an indication that providing
students with computer literacy is no longer optional, but required. It will take support
from all stakeholders and strong leadership by policy makers to folly Implement a
technology program. In sum, the literature suggests that technology constitutes not only
an opportunity, but also a challenge.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 8
CHAPTER in : METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter discusses the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and
data analysis process. This study focused on issues that educators face in integrating
technology in schools. It dealt with the technology design at the district and school level.
The researcher sought to discover ways to implement the design at the classroom level
and went on further to discover the relationship between policy, plan, implementation,
and classroom use of technology. The research questions were as follows:
> What is the district’s current technology plan design?
> To what extent has the district technology design been implemented?
> What is the relationship between the district’s technology plan design,
implementation of the plan, and classroom use of technology?
Based on the purpose of this study, the methodological strategy the researcher
used was a qualitative, descriptive-analytic one called the case study. Case study is a
research tradition that makes use o f multiple data gathering techniques and is concerned
with creating a detailed description o f the research case (Creswell, 1998). This method
provided the means to conduct an in-depth study and analysis o f a district and school
involved in the incorporation of educational technology. Rather than depending on a
single, validated protocol, to ensure the quality o f the data the researcher used
triangulation. The first data gathering technique was the review of written documents,
namely the District Technology Plan. The second technique was the administration of
questionnaires and surveys. The final data gathering technique was the interview
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4 9
process. The instruments were developed based on a conceptual framework designed
to identify the key elements addressed in the research questions.
Sample and Population
One Southern California district and one middle school within that district were
selected to identify key design elements and implementation strategies. The district and
school were selected on the basis of: (a) having a county-approved technology plan, (b)
having implemented the plan, and (c) being a “lighthouse” school in the area of
educational technology. The researcher used a purposive sample due to the need to
identify a school that met all three criteria.
District and School
The district selected for the study, Harbor View Unified, is an urban K-12
district located in Southern California. With 93,694 students, it is one of the largest
districts in the state. The selected site, DeMilo Middle School, is one of seventeen
middle schools in the district. Table 1 below provides an enrollment overview for both
the district and the school:
Table 1 Enrollment Overview
Sample Grade Span
Schools
Enrollment Free/Reduced
lunch
District K-12 89 93,694 67%
■ u h B h
6-8 M— M— 1,237 IjWlMiBMI
DeMilo Middle School has 3 full-time administrators and 51 teachers. The
number of credentialed teachers equals 43 with the remaining 8 on emergency
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
50
credentials. The average class size for the school is 28. Table 2 below provides a
demographic overview for both the district and the school:
Table 2 Demographics Overview
Ethnicity African
Ameria ■
Ai-Bgrlc8.il
in................ in.in
Asian Vllijaao Hispanic
or Latino
faaG c
Islander
.site
not
Hispanic
District 19.7% 0.3% 11.5% 3.1% 45.4% 2.1% 17.9%
School 11.7% 0.1% 4.4% 0.3% 65.5% 0.4% 17.6%
District Leaders
Three district leaders were part of the sample. The Director of Information
Services, a White male, has been in his current position for five years. Previously he was
a principal in the same district. The Director of Technology, a White male, has been in
his current position for over ten years and was also a principal in the same district. The
Technology Curriculum Leader, an Indian (sub-continent of Asia) female, has been in her
current position for one year only. In fact, the position has only been in existence for one
year. It was created due to a need that the district had to strengthen its curriculum
integration section of the District Technology Plan. There was also a need to strengthen
professional development opportunities for teachers in the district in educational
technology which is her main role. Prior to this year, the Technology Curriculum Leader
was a classroom and mentor teacher.
Site Administrators
Two site administrators were included in this study. The site principal, a White
male, has been in his current position for one year. Previously, he was principal at an
elementary school in the same district. The Technology Coordinator, a White female, is
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
51
also a full-time teacher. She has led the technology program at DeMilo Middle School
for the past four years.
Teaching Staff
As stated, there are fifty-one classroom teachers at the site. All of the teachers at
the school were asked to complete two surveys. Thirty-three teachers returned completed
surveys to the researcher. Additionally, six teachers at the school were interviewed. The
researcher chose three teachers who incorporate technology in their classes on a regular
basis as identified by the principal. All three of those teachers teach in the Applied
Technology Magnet (ATM) Program which is the major technology program /
curriculum at the school. The remaining three interviewees were teachers who were
identified by the principal as emergent users o f technology. Those teachers do not teach
in the ATM program. Among the teachers interviewed, there was diversity across a
number of dimensions - grade levels taught, subject matter taught, and years of
employment at DeMilo Middle School. The rationale for this diversity was to get a broad
picture of teachers’ experiences with technology in the school. No students were
included in the sample.
Conceptual Framework
The Technology Plan Conceptual Framework and data collection instruments
were developed by a University of Southern California parallel research cohort. The
cohort, consisting o f seven Ed.D. students and one Ph.D. student in the Rossier School of
Education, developed the framework and instruments in a collaborative process
beginning in the Summer o f 2001. This six-week summer course (and subsequent
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5 2
dissertation classes) was led by Professor Lawrence O. Picus, PkD. The conceptual
framework and data collection instruments were created using relevant literature as the
foundation.
The Technology Plan Conceptual Framework, found in Appendix I, is divided
into five critical areas:
> Curriculum
> Professional Development
> Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support, and Software
> Funding and Budget
> Monitoring and Evaluation
These components parallel the California Department of Education’s model for a
comprehensive technology plan. The conceptual framework is further divided to address
each of the research questions.
The Framework for the First Research Question
The first research question asked, “What is the district’s technology plan design?”
The “District Plan” column of the framework was developed by the research cohort to
conceptualize the key areas of a technology plan design. This provided the basis for the
data collection strategy (review of written documents) for research question one. This
conceptual framework also provided the basis for the Researcher Rating Form, Appendix
I. Several instruments including Influence Mapping, Appendix I, and Interview Guides,
Appendix II, were used to determine the perceptions of technology policy.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The Framework for the Second Research Question
53
The second research question asked, “To what extent has the district technology
pla n been implemented?” The “School Implementation of Plan” column of the
framework, Appendix I, is relevant to the second research question. This provided the
basis for the data collection strategy (questionnaires and surveys). Further data to assess
the level of technology implementation was gathered from the interview process and
Researcher Rating Form for Levels of Technology Implementation Variables, Appendix
I, which includes the following components:
> Plan for Technology Use
> Implementers Disposition
> Motivation
> Sources o f Information
> Leadership Role
> Interaction with Other Levels
> Likelihood of Reform Success
> Policy/Plan Goals Being Met
> Overall Effect and Influence from this Level
The Framework for the Third Research Question
The third research question asked, “What is the relationship between the district
technology plan design, implementation of the plan, and classroom use of technology?”
The previous research question focused on schoolwide implementation, whereas research
question three focuses on classroom implementation. The “Classroom Implementation of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5 4
P lan’* column o f the framework is relevant to the final research question. This
framework provided the basis for the data collection strategy (interviews). Data gathered
through interviews were assessed using the Researcher Rating Form, Appendix I, and the
Levels o f Technology Implementation (LoTi).
Data Collection Instruments
The conceptual framework developed for the research questions provided the
basis for the selection and development of data collection instruments. As stated, review
of written documents, questionnaires, surveys, and interviews were selected as the means
to collect the data. The research team determined that these particular data collection
tools were most appropriate for the qualitative, case study methodology being used.
Review o f Written Documents
Review of written documents was a data gathering tool used throughout the
research project. The first document reviewed was the District Technology Plan. This
board and county approved document represented district policy in regards to technology.
Further documents reviewed related to the school in general and technology in particular.
Those documents include the School Level Plan, School Web site, Academic Technology
Standards, the Applied Technology Magnet (ATM) Goals and Objectives, and the ATM
Content Standards.
District Administrator Interview Guide
Three administrators at the district office were interviewed. A District
Administrator Interview Guide, located in Appendix II, developed by the research team
provided a structured series o f questions to probe for information relative to the research
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
55
questions. The purpose of the questions in tWs guide was to determine administrator
perceptions of the level of technology use at schools and teachers5 understanding and
attitudes toward technology. It also served as a means to determine the background
(motivation, research base, influential forces, etc.) of the district tehcnology plan.
District Administrator Questionnaire
Five administrators at the district office completed questionnaires which are
included in Appendix II. The purpose o f the questionnaire was to determine the level of
technology use in the classroom from the percpective of central office staff. Also, to
determine administrator’s perceptions of teachers’ and site administrators’ understanding
and attitudes toward technology.
Site Administrator Interview Guide
This Site Administrator Interview Guide, displayed in Appendix II, provided a list
of relevant questions and probes to direct the interview o f site administrators. Two
school leaders were interviewed using this tool. The purpose was to determine site level
awareness o f and attitude regarding the district technology plan. It also helped to reveal
pertinent information about implementation efforts of the district technology plan.
Site Administrator Questionnaire
Two site administrators completed this questionnaire located in Appendix II.
Questions revealed the level o f technology use in the district, school, and classroom. It
also revealed site adminstrator attitudes about educational technology as it relates to
effective use, impact of plan, and fending.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
56
influence Mapping
Influence mapping, included in Appendix I, was used as part of the district, site
administrator, and teacher interviews. This form, part A and B, was created by Scott
Price, the PkD. student involved in the research cohort. The purpose of this form was to
determine from where the end user’s information about the effective use of technology in
the classroom comes. It also provided information about perceptions of sources of
influence in the area of policy, fimding, and implementation of educational technology.
Teacher Interview Guide
Six teachers at the school site participated in interviews. This Teacher Interview
Guide, exhibited in Appendix II, was structured in a way to allow the researcher to solicit
information on the level o f technology use in the classroom, It determined the level to
which implementation o f the district technology plan has reached at the school site level.
Important data extracted from this tool helped the researcher to identify what changes the
district and school need to make in technology plans and policy.
Teacher Questionnaire
All teachers at the site were asked to complete a questionnaire, in Appendix II.
This tool helped to establish the level o f technology use in the classroom and
demonstrated teachers’ understanding and attitudes toward technology. From this data
the researcher determined whether technology use in teachers’ classrooms has resulted
from implementation efforts of the district technology plan.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5 7
Researcher Rating Forms
These innovation configurations provided rubrics upon which the researcher used
to measure the success o f techno logy implementation. The Researcher Rating Forms
(Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy,, Technology Policy and Implementation
Study, and Levels o f Technology Implementation Variables) all included in Appendix I,
allowed the researcher to evaluate how closely the district’s technology plan adheres to
state guidelines and how effective technology integration was in the classroom. These
forms were utilized after all data was gathered and reviewed by the researcher. Its
evaluative nature called for researcher interpretation and therefore may include some
biases.
Levels o f Technology Implementation
The researcher also used the Level o f Technology Implementation (LoTi) in the
same way as the Researcher Rating Form to determine the level o f classroom technology
integration that interviewed teachers reached. This instrument, created by Dr.
Christopher Moersch (adapted from the wrok he did with Hall and Hord in the field),
generates a profile for the teacher across three domains - LoTi, personal computer use,
and current instructional practices. In the LoTi framework, Moersch (1995) proposes
seven discreet implementation levels teachers can demonstrate:
> Nonuse
> Awareness
> Exploration
> Infusion
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
58
> Integration
> Expansion
> Refinement.
Research involving this questionnaire has demonstrated a statistically significant
correlation among students’ academic achievement, the amount of teacher professional
development, and a teacher’s LoTi
Stages of Concern
As discussed in the Literatue Review, change efforts, in order to be successful,
must also take into consideration the concerns of the individual’s who are changing. As
schools implement educational technology, teachers’ concerns must be considered as
they go through the change process. Hall’s Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
was based on the premise that teachers experience developmental stages and levels as
they became increasingly skilled in using new programs and innovations. This widely
used, reliable, research based questionnaire, Appendix II, allowed the researcher to
determine what stage teachers were on in implementing educational technology.
Reliability
The reliability o f an instrument is generally established through replication. An
instrument is administered a number of times by a number of different researchers to
make sure that the results are consistent. The eight members o f the parallel research
cohort (seven Ed.D. and one PkD. student) field tested all instruments in several districts
and several schools in Southern California. Discussions about findings followed in
subsequent meetings to establish reliability. In addition, the researcher conducted data
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
59
collection over several weeks to compare data from early visits against data from later
visits to further establish reliability.
Data Collection
The data for the study were collected in January 2002 and February 2002 by the
researcher during several rounds of data collection. Prior to any data collection, the
researcher met with the Assistant Superintendent of Research, Planning, and Evaluation
to review a written plan that contained the abstract, purpose, instruments, and format of
the data collection. This was a requirement of the Harbor View Unified School District.
The researcher received permission from the Assistant Superintendent to proceed with
the study. The researcher approached three different middle schools with proposals to
conduct the study before permission was received to use DeMilo Middle School. A
meeting was held with the site principal to provide a similar review. The researcher
made several visitations to the district office and the school site for the purposes o f
reviewing documents, conducting interviews, and delivering/collecting surveys and
questionnaires.
During the first week o f data collection, the Director o f Information Services and
the Director ofTechnology were both interviewed. Central office staff completed
questionnaires. Also, the school site Principal and Technology Coordinator were
interviewed. All interviewees completed quesstionnaires and influence mapping.
During the second week of data collection, the teacher questionnaires were
distributed at a staff meeting. Two teachers and the District Technology Curriculum
Leader were interviewed. The researcher ran into difficulties completing the remainder
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
60
of the interviews and collecting surveys at the school site because the staff was under a
tremendous amount of stress to get through a Compliance Review. Only nine surveys
had been returned. The researcher decided to wait a few weeks until the Compliance
Review was complete.
The third week of data collection was more promising than the previous data
collection visit. The researcher redistributed questionnaires and surveys due to the low
response to the first request. Each teacher was given an envelope containing the survey
and questionnaire and directed to return completed forms to the principal. The
questionnaires were then picked up by the researcher. The return rate was much higher
with a total of thirty-three surveys and questionnaires returned. Data collection was
complete when the remaining four teachers were interviewed. The researcher recorded
three of the interviews and later transcribed them word for word. The remaining
interviews were not recorded. Key quotes were extracted from notes to be used in the
Findings section of the study.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to investigate the technology design at the district
and school level. The study examined crucial elements o f the technology design. In
addition, it sought to discover effective ways to implement the design at the classroom
level and went on further to discover the relationship between policy, plan,
implementation, and classroom use o f technology. The process used to analyze the data
paralleled the three research questions.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
61
The researcher reviewed the District Technology Plan and evaluated it against
the district plan portion of the conceptual framework. This followed the California
Department o f Education’s model o f a comprehensive technology plan. Utilizing
additional data from district leaders, the researcher then rated the plan using the
Researcher Rating Forms. Next, the researcher focused on the implementation of the
design, research question two. The responses from each teacher questionnaire were
entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Averages were calculated for each respondent and for
each item. Additional descriptive statistics were calculated. This quantitative data was
compared to qualitative data gathered during interviews. The researcher then rated the
implementation level using the Researcher Rating Forms. Finally, the researcher focused
on research question three, the relationship between the plan, implementation o f the plan,
and classroom use of technology. Teacher interviews were relied upon heavily for this
analysis. In addition, the researcher used the Levels of Technology Integration (LoTi) to
rate each teachers use of technology. The final analysis was noted in the Researcher
Rating Forms. Each research question was analyzed based on its underlying conceptual
framework and the data collected using the described instruments. Table 3 below shows
the relationship between each research question and the data used for analysis.
Table 3 The Relationship of the Research Questions to the Data
Research Q uestion #1 Research Q uestion #2 Research Question rti
Review o f W ritten
Docum ents
| D istrict Administrator
Questionnaire
District Administrator
interview ■
| Influence Mapping Levels o f T echnology
Implementation (LoTi)
Researcher Sating Forms j Interviews (Site
l Adm inistrators and Teachers)
Researcher R ating Forms
! Site Administrator
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 2
Table 3 The Relationship of the Research Questions to the Data (cont)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Questionnaire_____________________ _______________
•' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Stages of Concern • -/
_ _ _ Teacher Questionnaire _ ■ ,
• _ _ _ _ -R^earsher:Rating:Fenns; :
Levels of Technology
8l!lllllill8B !lfti@ flliillllliB S 8lii|lE i: : : r: iihip leihentaffen: pdTij i i ; ; f : ; ; :
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the research methods used in the study, which included a
description of the research design, the sample, the data collection instruments, an
overview of the data collection and the process used to analyze the data. The relationship
between the research questions, the conceptual framework, and the data collected was
established. In the next chapter, the findings and analysis of the research are presented.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
63
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected for this study. The purpose
of the study was to determine the design of the District Technology Plan with a particular
focus on an investigation o f the implementation o f that plan. Furthermore, the researcher
sought to discover the relationship between policy, plan, implementation, and classroom
use of technology. Case study methodology was used. This method provided the means
to conduct an in-depth study and analysis o f a district and school involved in the
incorporation of educational technology. The data collected from the selected district,
Harbor View Unified, and school, DeMilo Middle, was analyzed using the conceptual
framework developed for the research questions to identify the design and
implementation elements. Three research questions were developed for this study:
> What is the district’s current technology plan design?
> To what extent has the district technology design been Implemented?
> What is the relationship between the district’s technology plan design,
implementation of the plan, and classroom use of technology?
Research Question One
The first research question addressed in the study was: What is the district’s
current technology plan design? To answer this research question, three specific efforts
were undertaken. First, a thorough review of all written documents related to the
district’s technology plan design was conducted. This assessed the areas of curriculum,
professional development, infrastructure, hardware technology support and software,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 4
funding and budget, and monitoring and evaluation, the required areas as outlined by
the California Department of Education (2001). A second set of data addressing this
research question was generated by district administrator interviews. Finally, Researcher
Rating Forms (“Technology Policy and Implementation” and “Teacher Knowledge of
Policy, Programs, and Plans”) were used to assess the efficacy of the technology plan
design at the district level and teacher knowledge of policy. This triangulation of data
formed the basis o f the analysis for the first research question.
The Harbor View Unified School District Technology Plan
The Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan was last updated in
November o f2000. The district is currently in the process of rewriting the plan with a
particular focus on the areas o f curriculum integration and professional development.
The Director ofTechnology spoke of the evolution o f the District Technology Plan.
“The first plan was created over six years ago. The initial one did not look like the
current one. We had a very supportive Deputy Superintendent at that time who had a
vision. Most districts did not have a District Technology Plan at that time, nor did many
people see the possibilities of the Internet, but our Deputy Superintendent saw the
possibilities early on. He was a visoinary, but we all thought he was crazy...now we see
that he was right. At that time, the plan was created by the people who were the decision
makers of the district. The process has evolved quite a bit since then. Now we include
teachers, site administrators, school technology coordinators, various office
representatives from the district, and GTE (now Verizon) is one of our business partners
involved in the process over the years.”
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The current District Technology Plan has the following components:
1. Executive Summary
Mission Goals and Objectives
2. Instructional Uses o f Technology
3. Progress on Goals and Objectives
4. Academic Technology Standards
5. Staff Development
Teacher Resource Center
Administration Building
Library Media Centers
Other District Resources
6. Data Environment
General Information
Wide Area Network
Local Area Network
Data Center
Internet Access
Email Services
Video Environment
7. Support Staff
Data/Voice Support
Video Support
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 6
8. Funding.
In comparing this plan to the guidelines outlined by the California Department of
Education (CDE), the researcher found that all of the critical areas are included in the
Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan. However, the plan lacks detail
In two critical areas: curriculum integration and staff development. The plan includes
great detail on Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support and Software and Funding.
These two areas represent strengths of the district as evidenced by the District Plan and
the Director of Information Services’ review of a survey that was conducted early in the
school year that revealed that there are over 16,000 computers currently being used in the
district. According to the Director of Information Services, half of those 16,000
computers are on the network. He was also proud to inform the researcher that there are
6 Internet drops in every classroom throughout the district which enables all teachers to
have access to all the networked resources, including filtered access to the Internet.
The Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan was analyzed to
determine the extent to which it reflects the five critical areas outlined by the CDE (2001)
which are:
> Curriculum
> Professional Development
> Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support, and Software
> Funding and Budget
> Monitoring and Budget
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 7
The Researcher Rating Form (Technology Policy and Implementation) was used to
rate these components of the plan. The findings for each of those areas is reviewed
below;
Area I: Curriculum
Five subareas were examined within the larger area of curriculum. Those ratings
are identified below;
Table 4 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Curriculum
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
A —
District: Technology is included as an integral tool in district-approved curricular materials.
Rating; As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The instructional goal of the district is to introduce educational technology
as one additional tool in the arsenal o f resources available to improve
student achievement. The plan discusses including technology as an
integral tool in district-approved curricular materials although it lacks
detail.
School: Schoolwide curricular norms include technology integration
Rating; As
intended (tech
plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
Academic technology standards are including in the plan and schools are
expected to incorporate technology across the curriculum.
Classroom: Students use technology for information gathering, organizing and multimedia publishing
Rating: As intaided
(tech plan)
H U
Score: 4 (Often)
H ie plan calls for the use of the computer as an educational tool to collect,
analyze, and present Information.
District: District technology plan calls fra- technology use as a part o f the daily classroom routine
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan repeatedly hints to the idea that daily use o f technology is
encouraged, but there Is no clear statement to this effect.
School: Administrators include technology use as a daily expectation in observations and evaluations
Rating: As intmded
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan, includes a section on the progress of goals and objectives and
clearly states that the Technology Committee including Administrators w ill
continually assess technology use and resources allowing recommendations
for advancement.
Classroom: Student and teachers use technology daily as a tool in a variety of contexts
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 8
Table 4 Technology Flan Design Ratings - Curriculum (cent.)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan often mentions the various contexts in which teachers and
students are encouraged to use technology.
District: District expectations include technology use for standards-based instruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan repeatedly speaks to standards-based instruction. In feet, most
subject area content standards for the district have a section on technology.
In addition, the plan includes Academic Technology Standards.
School: School administrator expectations include technology use for standards-based instruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan calls for a focus on standards-based instruction through the use of
technology.
Classroom: Teachers develop goals and a specific implementation plan related to technology use for
standards-based instruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
■ a —
Score: 4 (Often)
The writers o f the plan make an assumption that teachers’ goals will
parallel the goals outlined in the technology plan. Implementation
strategies, however, are not addressed.
District: The district sets model timelines and benchmarks
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan includes a timeline and calls for an annual review of the plan. It
also includes a timeline for the District Technology Committee and the
Standards Committee meetings.
School: Schoolwide curricular planning involves technology planning and goals-setting
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
Technology planning is a critical area as addressed in the design.
Classroom: Teachers deve op timelines and benchmarks for classroom technology use
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan includes timelines, however those timelines are stated in general
and there is little specific information on timelines for classroom
technology use.
District: District uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology use
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The deployment strategy allows every teacher to access the district network
according to the plan.. A ll data records related to students are available.
Surveys are conducted annually to assess and evaluate technology goals
and objectives.
School: School uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The schools are encouraged to use student data to improve on student
achievement, but the use of data is not specifically for the purpose of
assessing technology use.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 9
Table 4 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Curriculum (cont.)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Classroom: Teacher uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology use
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The data available to teachers include testing and assessment data and other
information valuable to teachers to strengthen his/her instructional program
based on current and accurate data.
Researcher Rating average scores for the Curriculum section are included in
Table 5:
Table 5 Researri A “ . ' - ■ c ' “ \ ■ ■ rriculum
The Five Curriculum Snbcjrtegcries Averaged Scores
from Researcher
Ratings
. . - , . ^ : , ■ 4 (Often)
3.3 (Sometimes)
Links fr> standards-bas^d .curriculum , 3 (Sometimes)
Pfenning A ftd 'goakseUing 3.6 (Sometimes)
3.3 (Sometimes)
3.4 (Sometimes)
Curriculum is a crucial area in a technology plan. The Harbor View Unified
School District’s Technology Plan establishes the importance of this area, but does so if
very general terms resulting in an overall score of 3.4 (Sometimes). District officials
realize this flaw in the design and are therefore presently addressing the matter.
Nevertheless, the researcher observed strenthgs in this part of the plan. Those include
the Academic Content Standards which establishes technology use within and across the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
70
curriculum and Access to Student Data whereby teachers have access to current and
accurate student data to strenghten the instructional program.
Area II: Professional Development
Four subcategories within the Professional Development area were examined in
the Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan. Those ratings are included
in Table 6:
Table 6 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Professional Development
_________1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Area II: Professional Development
District: District provides professional development using technology for improving standards-based
instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan reflects that “the district w ill expand professional
development in all content areas to include technology. Staff
development and training for classroom uses in instruction are
provided by the Office o f Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional
Development as well as a group of Technology For Learning
educators that leverage CTAP funds to offer technology integration in
a tram-the-trainer format.” Opportunities are provided for teachers to
receive technology training that focuses on standards-based
instruction.
School: School provides professional development using technology for improving standards-based
instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The district plan insists that the district “provides significant resources
for staff development in all arras, including technology. In addition,
the district and individual schools take advantage o f extensive
commercial training opportunities.” The plan discusses technology
use in the context o f standards-based instruction, but the plan does not
discuss individual schools specifically.
Classroom: Teacher seeks professional development using technology for improving standards-based
instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan mentions that teacefars have the opportunity for extensive
profesional development and goes on further to include the training
facilities in the district that are dedicated to providing professional
development for teachers. However, technology for standards-based
instruction is not discussed in detail.
1 ! B _ _ 1 1
District: District provides professional development using technology for personal &/or administrative
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
71
Table 6 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Professional Development (cont)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often. 5 = Always
proficiency. I
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan repeatedly identifieses professional development for both
personal and administrative uses of technology.
School: School provides professional development using technology for personal &/or administrative
proficiency
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
The plan rarely discusses professional development provided by the
schools. The focus is on district-provided programs and opportunities
for individual teachers.
Classroom: Teacher seeks professional development using technology for personal &/or administrative
proficiency.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan repeatedly establishes professional development for both
personal and administrative uses of technolc “
District: District provides or seeks out funding for technology professional development.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The district provides “significant resources” for staff development for
technology.
School: School provides or seeks out funding for technology professional development. j
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
The plan rarely mentions professional development provided by the
schools.
Classroom: Teacher solicits fenc ing for personal professional development from external sources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
I fflM llii
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
The plan makes very little mention o f encouraging teachers to seek
funding for professional development. The plan is written with a
focus on the district leading the way in solicitation o f funds for
technology.
■ U H B H
I District: Professional development is planned by district, with explicit goals and ongoing evaluation. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan lists, in detail and with frequency, the goals of professional
development.
I School: Professional development is planned by school, with explicit goals and ongoing evaluation. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
Very little professional development is planned by schools according
to the plan
| Classroom: Professional development goals are planned and evaluated. I
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
The is very little evidence that teachers set individual goals for
professional development.
Researcher Rating average scores for the Professional Development section are
included in Table 7:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table 7 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores -
72
Professional Development
The Four Professional Development Subcategories Averaged Scores from
........................................................................................ .......... .RraearetoRatings...........
Teaching and teaming productivity 3.3 (Sometimes)
Perscmal/admioistratiYe productivity 3.3 (Sometimes)
Funding 2.6 (Infrequently)
Planning, goal-setting, and monitoring 3 (Sometimes)
TOTAL AVERAGE 3.1 (Sometimes)
Professional development is essential to the effective use of educational
technology. The California Department of Education (2001) asserts that without the
training, the equipment is a s useless as it would be without electricity. As a whole,
professional development is a major element o f the Harbor View Unified School
District’s Technology Plan. The plan is weak, however, in encouraging schools to create
their own professional development planning. The researcher, in analyzing the plan,
concluded that this weakness is amplified by the feet that the district technology
representatives lead the way in developing professional development. As discussed in
the Literature Review, teachers must play a key role in determining what professional
development opportunities are made available to them. Although many professional
development opportunities are provided as reflected in the plan, there is minimal
evidence that schools drive the professional development offerings. This part o f the
decision-making process appears to follow a “top-down” approach. Nevertheless, as
hinted to, there are strengths in this area. The district has three training facilities to
deliver training and staff development.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
73
Teacher Resource Center (TRC)
This “Mac” kb is available at the TRC for staff development and teacher “drop-
ins.” This lab is permanently staffed to allow teachers to come by after work for
assistance with problems or to review software available to them. Some of the offerings
at the TRC lab include:
> Math Standards Institute (Technology Integration)
> Mastering the Mac
> Electronic Lesson Planning with Standards
> HyperStudio
> Web Page Construction
Administrative Building
This PC environment is available at the district administration building to train
employees the various instructional and administrative software programs in the district.
These include:
> Groupwise Email
> SASIxp
> Payroll and Personnel (HRS) applications
> Microsoft Office
Adult School B2 Lab
The Information Services department partnered with the Harber Unified School
for Adults to develop a 41 station PC lab, complete with a file server, laser printers, and
an LCD projector. This lab is available for classes on:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
74
> Web Page Creation
> MS Word
> Excel
> PowerPoint
> Access
> Internet
The district also participates in a LA County-led consortium to provide staff
development in technology. The current project is the Technology Teacher Resources
Across the Curriculum (TTRAC) which provides intensive technology training. Teachers
involved in this professional development program must commit to training 10 additional
teachers upon completion. Although the district provides many professional
development opportunities as evidenced above, the researcher rated the overall plan in
the mid-range because o f its “top-down” nature. There is little evidence that teachers
play a leadership role or have opportunity for quality input In this area. Thus the total
average was 3.1 (Sometimes).
Area III: Infrastructure. Hardware. Technology Support and Software
In the area o f Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support and Software, the researcher
examined five subcategories.
Table 8 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology
Support and Software
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Area HI: Infrastructure, Hardware, Tech Support & Software
Districts District has set up guidelines regarding bandwidth, security, access to information.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan contains detailed information regarding bandwidth,
security, and access to inforroaiton.______________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Table 8 Technology Plan Design Matings - Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology
Support and Software (cont.)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
School: Schools are fully networked for teacher and student use.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
All sites are connected to the District Data Center through a Wide
Area Network (WAN).
Classroom: Teachers can access information from anywhere in the school or from home.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The deployment strategy included in the plan allows every teacher to
access the district network.
I f f l S l i l i M
District: Sets minimum specs for technology purchased. Makes productivity tools/courses available to
staff and students.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan allows some flexibility in school site decision-making in
regards to technology purchases. However, minimum spec are
included and only technology purchased using those guidelines will
receive “support” from the Office of Information Services
School: Purchases hardware only after review by team of school staff. .Administrators make stuff aware
o f electronic learning resources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
Schools are clearly informed of electronic learning resources.
Schools are encouraged to make decisions based on a review by a
team of school staff.
Classroom: Teachers participate in maintaining and annually updating hardware and software
standards. Teachers and students take advantage of productivity tools and/or courses offered.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The District Technology Committee meets four times per year. The
Standards Committee meets once a month to review emerging
technologies and recommend adoption of those that fulfill the
technology needs o f the district. Both committee consist of teachers.
District: Establishes guidelines for best practice in setting up technology equipment
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The plan includes much detail on technology equipment
School: Uses research based criteria to place hardware in proper locations for optimal student learning.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
TMs part of the plan regularly mentions hardware set-up for optima!
administrator, teacher, and student use.
Classroom: Teacher can provide feedback on classroom hardware needs.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
Surveys are distributed regularly throughout the district to assess
hardware inventory a sites.
District: Provides library' of resources where teachers can review software titles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Table 8 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology
Support and Software (cont.)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
There are three training labs (among other resources) available in the
district where teachers can review software titles.
School: School supports software purchases made by teachers.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
Software purchases are supported through the Office of Information
Services. However, only software purchased following guidelines
outlined in the plan are supported.
Classroom: Teacher abides by recommendations made by district office when purchasing for own
class.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
Teachers understand that support w ill be given only if technology
purchases follow guidelines outlined in the plan which serves as an
incentive to abide by recommendations.
I
District: Provides technical support in a timely fashion to all schools and classrooms.
Rating: As intended (tech
plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
According to the plan, the Office o f Information Services provides a
24-36 hour tum-around for technical support.
School: Provides on-site support people to assist teachers with technical support.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
There are three tiers for technical support. Tier 3 support staff go out
to sites to provide technical support.
Classroom: Provide technicians feedback on needed repairs and ongoing problems.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
There is a Help Desk available to teachers to communicate feedback
on needed repairs and ongoing problems.
The Harbor View Unified’s Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support and
Software section is the most detailed part of the plan. According to the Director of
Technology, this is in part due to the fact that the original plan focused heavily on this
area and the prople who led the development of the current District Technology Plan are
experts in this area. The Director of Technology, upon reflecting on past Technology
Plan efforts, admits that the committees of the past were slow in realizing that the
infrastructure section of the plan exists to facilitate reaching the goals set in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Curriculum and Professional Development sections. In the current updating of the
plan, all stakeholders realize that Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support, and
Software is not a goal within, itself, but rather the means to reach goals outlined in other
areas of the plan. The Researcher Rating averages for this section are included in Table
9:
Table 9 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Infrastructure, Hardware,
Technology Support and Software
The Five Infrastructure, Hardware. Technology Support
and Software Subcategories
Averaged Scores from
Researcher Ratings
Networking . 5 (Always)
Hardware and software standards 4 (Often)
Hardware acquisition 4 (Often)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in. nil. .. . . . .. ill. . .. . . . . . . .. .. in . ill. i n . . . .. . . . . . . in . . . . . . . . . . . in. . 4.3 (Often)
Technical Support 5 (Always)
TOTAL AVERAGE 4.S (Often)
Research on academic gains attributable to technology points to easy access for
students and teachers in the classroom as the place in which the greatest impact may be
achieved (CDE, 2001). The researcher viewed this area of the plan’s greatest strength to
lie in the Technology Help Desk. Priorities for dealing with problems have been
established with the highest priority given to calls where classroom instruction and access
is being disrupted. In addition, the Help Desk format consists o f three tiers. There are
Tier 1 ,2, and 3 staff. The district has a 60% solution rate at Tier 1. If the Tier 1 staff are
unable to fix the problem, then it is forwarded to Tier 2. Any problem reaching Tier 3
almost always results in a school site visit to resolve the problem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
The Harbor View Unified School District includes a tremendous amount of
information on Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support, and Software. This
section is divided into the following areas:
>
Data Environment
> Wide Area Network
> Local Area Networks
> Data Center
> Internet Access
> Email Services
> Video Envrionment
> Support Staff
> Data/Voice Support
In general, this area o f the plan parallels the CDE’s recommendation for a
district’s technology plan. Thus the overall score was 4.5 (Often).
Area IV: Funding and Budget
Four subcategories were examined in the Harbor View Unified School District
technology plan within the Funding and Budget area.
Table 10 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Funding and Budget
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
y in w d .ro
District.* District includes technology fending in regular and categorical budgets for all components o f
technology plan (i.e. curriculum, etc.)
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan discusses fending through general as well as categorical
budgets and identifies spending in all components o f the plan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Table 10 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Funding and Budget (cont)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
School: Regular school site and categorical budgets include technology funding for all components of
tech plan (i.e. curriculum, etc.)
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan notes that funding for technology is provided from a number
o f sources including general and categorical budget. In addition, the
district has various grants and a major bond for additional funding
Classroom: Teachers have awareness o f budget and adequate resources to successfully implement
technology in the classroom.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
District: District seeks partnersh
Score: 5 (Always)
“Site-based decision making is supported through funding of
technology-based requests from all sites within the district through the
use o f discretionary fends allocated to each school, to be used as the
school’s site-based management team believes w ill best benefit the
students of that school.”
ips with local business groups for technology resources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan states, “Opportunities for discounts, sharing and
contributions are being pursued through membership in community
partnerships. Specifically, participation in the Technology Launch
Initiative is underway.”
| School: School seeks partnerships with local business groups for technology resources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
Individual schools are involved in forming partnerships with local
businesses for technology resources although the district takes the
lead in this area.
Classroom: Teachers invite local partners to participate in student learning. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
District: District has position for
Score: 4 (Often)
Teachers have the opportunity to invite local partners to participate in
student learning
and supports grant writing and seeking additional funding
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
The plan asserts, “The fending efforts o f the Technology Plan are an
essential segment and are actively pursued at all levels. Plans are in
place to pursue additional revenues through current and future grants,
discount programs and contributions.”
| School: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site needs. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Every effort is made to involve schools in the grant writing process,
however, the district has staff available to write on behalf of the
schools. Schools are actively involved by providing necessary data as
required by grant applications.
Classroom: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site needs. ]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 10 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Funding and Budget (cont)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
District grant writers in partnership with the Office of Curriculum and
Instruction and the Office o f Information Services write grants for the
district. Teachers are involved, but in an advisory manner.
District: District is open to input from school, teacher and community when making important budget-
related decisions.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan reflects that schools will make site-based decisions about
funding technology at their school, however, there is little evidence
that schools are involved in district-wide budget decision making.
School: School provides forum for input on technology-budget from teachers, district and
community/business.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
Site-based decisions regarding budget is outlined as a requirement in
the plan.
I Classroom: Teachers are involved as a part o f the budget process.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
As it relates to siet-based management, teacehrs are involved as a part
o f the budget process.
Funding is necessary to accomplish each component of the technology design.
The Harbor View Unified School District’s (HVUSD) Technology Plan reflects one-time
and ongoing funding. The HVUSD Board “recognizes the importance of technology in
the delivery of educaitonal services so funding support is strong.” Due to the restrictions
of general and categorical funding, the plan calls for the establishment of partnerships
with local business groups. The plan also supports grant seeking. The creators of the
Technology Plan recognize that having a comprehensive technology plan will open the
doors for additional funding and resources as it is a requirement for various state and
federal grant programs.
The Researcher Rating average scores for each subcategory of the Funding and
Budget area are included in Table 11:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Table 11 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Funding and Budget
The Four Funding and Budget Subcategories Averaged Scores from
Researcher Ratings
WHS} 5 (Always)
4.7 (Often)
■fllBllF 3.7 (Sometimes)
3.3 (Sometimes)
5t*r .'L A.AjAtcM 4.2 (Often)
The researcher, upon analyzing the data, identified a weakness in involving
teachers in district-wide decision making for funding. The district’s greatest strength in
the Funding and Budget area lies in the active seeking of grants. Some of the grants
utilized include:
> Digital High School Funding
> Technology Literacy Challenge Grant
> SB 1510 Grant
> AB 825 Block Grant
> California Public Utilities Grant
> Annenberg Grant
The plan’s overall score in this area is 4.2 (Often).
Area V: Monitoring and Evaluation
Four subcategories were examined in the Harbor View Unified School District’s
Technology Plan within the Monitoring and Evaluation section.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Table 12 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Monitoring and Evaluation
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Area V: Monitoring and Evaluation
District: District seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring o fted i plan implementation.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan reflects that one major duty o f the Technology Comm ittee
is to continually assess the implementation status of the technology
plan. Other tools such as CTAP are utilized to monitor progress.
School: School seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring of tech plan implementation.
Rating: A s intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Organizations such as CTAP are referenced in the plan. The plan
speaks o f efforts from the schools to use regular surveys and
community input to make decisions about technology at the school.
Classroom: Teacher seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring of tech plan implementation.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
M B a l M
Score: 2 (Infrequently)
There is no mention o f a specific process whereby teachers will
provide input in monitoring other than surveys and committee input.
* HM LAldJji z * u £ * * A ? 4Jf-wd _ * ■ 1
District: District frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The technology plan includes a section entitled “Progress on Goals
and Objectives” which describes the district’s progress on
established goals. This section is updated continually to reflect
progress.
School: School frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Through surveys and School Site Councils, schools frequently
examine current needs and progress toward goals.
Classroom: Teacher frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
District: Benchmarks for learner
periodically.
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
The plan provides minimal guidelines on how teachers w ill examine
current needs with the exception o f surveys and within committees.
outcomes using technology are established and examined
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Benchmarks in the form o f standards are included in the plan for
every grade level, K-12, and there is a Standards Committee that
meets once a month to make decisions regarding benchmarks.
School: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are established and examined periodically.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Table 12 Technology Plan Design Ratings - Monitoring and Evaluation (cont)
1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
District-wide technology standards that are specific to grade levels
and relevant to student outcomes are included in the technology plan.
Classroom: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are examined periodically. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 4 (Often)
The Standards Committee periodically examines learner outcomes
using technology.
I District: District provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous improvement
Rating. As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 5 (Always)
Survey results are available for review and decisions are made that
reflect that review. CTAP results for the district as well as individual
schools are available on the Internet.
I School: School provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous improvement. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Survey results are available for review through the Office of
Research and Evaluation. CTAP results for the district as well as
individual schools are available on the Internet.
Classroom: Teacher provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous improvement.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
Score: 3 (Sometimes)
Teachers provide feedback through the use of surveys.
Effective monitoring and evaluation can justify the expenditures made in the area
of technology. The controversial question of whether technology positively affects
student learning can possibly be answered by having an effective design for evaluating
the program. The Harbor View Unified School District’s Monitoring and Evaluation
section is not structured in a way, in the opinion of the researcher, to provide adequate
data to facilitate establishing a relationship between education technology and student
achievement. All of the surveys discussed in the plan are completed by teachers and
committees. The researcher saw no evidence of student surveys and therfore identifies
this as a weakness. The researcher rating average scores are detailed in Table 13:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Table 13 Researcher Rating Averaged Scores - Monitoring and Evaluation
81af g l ^ Averaged Scores from
Researcher Ratings
Monitoring 2.7 (Infrequently)
Needs and goals 3.3 (Sometimes)
Learner outcomes -' 3.7 (Sometimes)
S l i P a J l l l l f : T:;W I11y; TlllBfT f Slllll T 3.7 (Sometimes)
:'U T l . 3.4 (Sometimes)
One strength in the Monitoring and Evaluation area is the district’s utilization of
outside monitoring organizations such as The California Technology Assistance Program
(CTAP) to gain valuable information about technology use in the HVUSD schools.
Despite this strength, the researcher found the overall handling of this area in the plan to
be limited. Thus, the overall ranking is 3.4 (Sometimes).
Influence Mapping
The second portion of the research addressing research question one, the design of
the district technology plan, was assessed via Influence Mapping and teachers’
knowledge o f policy, programs, and plans. Part A of the Influence Mapping asked
thirteen individuals (five district administrators, two school site administrators, and six
teachers) to identify their position, the resources that give them the most useful
information regarding technology policy and implementation, and the sources of this
information as well as those whom the individual served as a resource. Part B of the
Influence Mapping asked those same thirteen individuals to rate the sources (Teacher,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
School, District, State, and Nation) according to level of influence. This was an
important instrument in determining how stakeholders perceive policy.
Part A of the Influence Mapping Form, Appendix I. presents a flowchart that
identifies the influence of key figures from the Classroom, School, District, State,
National Resources, and Federal Grovemment. Interviewees were instructed to underline
the position that best describes them. Then they were instructed to circle the people who
give them the most useful Information to effectively implement technology. Next,
interviewees drew lines to whom they believe their influences receive their information.
Finally, respondents were asked to draw lines to those for whom they act as a resource.
A holistic analysis of the data extracted from Part A offered the following findings:
> Four teachers and one district administrator named the Federal Government as being
significant in resource influence. Two teachers chose The Secretary of Education and
one teacher and one district administrator chose The Department of Education.
However, most interviewees did not even consider the Federal Government to be a
source of information regarding technology.
> In the National Resources column, only one site administrator and one teacher named
Professional Journals as Influencing them. One site administrator and one teacher
listed the Internet and two district administrators listed Conferences as a major source
of influence.
> The State column o f the map yielded twenty responses. One teacher listed the
Legislature as being influential. Four teachers and one site administrator felt the
Department o f Education was a source of influence. Two teachers, both site
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
administrators, and three district administrators chose Regional Organizations,
namely CTAP. Four teachers, one site administrator, and two district administrators
listed the County Office as providing valuable information on technology use.
> There were nineteen indicators of influence from the District column of the map.
Five teachers, both site administrators, and four district administrators identified the
Director of Technology as influential. Additionally, two teachers, one site
administrator, and four district administrators listed the Director of Instructional
Services as being influential. One teacher listed Consultants as providing useful
information to effectively implement technology.
> There were seventeen responses in the School column o f the plan. Three teachers
listed the Principal as being a source of influence. One teacher chose the Vice
Principal Five teachers and both site admmmistrators named the Technology
Coordinator as giving useful information regarding technology. All six teachers
named each other (Colleagues) as being influential to educational technology
implementation.
> Both site administrators felt that they were influential to teachers and that teachers
were influential to them. Four teachers felt that they were influential to students.
The Federal government was not perceived to be influential in providing
information about the implementation of educational technology. State governments and
organizations appear to provide consultation and other services, with teachers and school
administrators being primary recipients of information regarding technology
implementation. Generally, these data indicate that information tends to flow from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Director of Techno fogy, the most influential actor in the design and implementation of
technology issues at the district level. The school’s Technology Coordinator is most
influential at the school level. Interestingly, the Principal felt that he was very influential
to teachers in giving useful information to implement technology. However, only 50%
(three o f six) of the teachers listed the Principal as having any influence at all. All
teacher respondents listed other teachers as a major source of influence.
Part B of the Influence Mapping, Appendix I, gave interviewees the opportunity
to rate (in ranking order) sources on funding, policy and implementation. Funding was
defined as any monies used for hardware, software, training, or personnel relating to
technology. Policy wass defined as technology goals including goal requirements.
Implementaion was defined as actions or programs used to reach technology policy goals.
The sources being ranked included:
> Teacher/Department
School
District
State
Nation.
The table below presents a summary o f results (category averages) regarding the
relative importance of funding, policy, and implementation with respect to the effective
use of technology in the classroom by locus o f influence. A five-point Likert scale was
employed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Table 14 Results of Influence Mapping - Average Rank of Influence
l=Mghest, 2= somewhat high, 3=moderate, 4=somewhat low, 5=lowest
li ...~ rim
m u m i
I Response o f
1 interviewees
H,’ |
— § — &— J L
Teacher
School
District
State
Nation
3 'K f “ S
1 • I 1 I i
—H-------££L _— ' t = s -----S S ----- -S j
District / Site
administrator i
4,3 2.T 2.1 2-3 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.1 2.7 4 2 ■ 1.9 2.1 4 ' ' '5
Classroom
Teacher
4 2.3 ■ 2.5 2.5 3.7 4.8 3.8 2.7 1.8 . 1.8 1.7 2.3 2 4 5
Average Total
(all)
4.2 2.6 2.3 2.4 3.6 4.1 3.3 2.4 2.3 2.9
Based on an analysis of the data charted above, several conclusions can be drawn:
Funding
> District and site administrators view the district as being the most influential in the
area of fending. The teacher is viewed as the least important.
> Teachers view the school as being the most influential in fending matters. Like the
district and site administrators, teachers view themselves as least influential in
fending matters.
> The average of all interviewees revealed that the district was the most important in
affecting funding for technology. The state was a close second in the fending area.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 9
Collectively, the perception is that teachers are powerless in decisions regarding
fending.
Policy
> District and site administrators viewed the district as being the most influential in
shaping policy. This group of interviewees believed the nation to be the least
influential in shaping policy as it relates to technology.
> Teachers perceived the state and nation equally to be the most important source of
influence in policy setting. Teachers viewed themselves to be the least influential in
affecting policy.
> Collectively, all interviewees perceived the state to have the most influence in policy
that establishes effective use o f technology in the classroom. Also,teachers were seen
as being the least important source o f influence.
Implementation
> District and site administrators saw the school as being most influential in the
implementation o f technology. This group saw the nation as being least likely to
influence implementation.
> Teachers perceived themselves to be the most important in impacting implementation
efforts with the nation coming in last.
> Collectively, respondents believe that teachers lead the way in technology
implementation and the nation is not considered to have a real impact in this area.
In reviewing the data overall, it is clear to the researcher that teachers, while feeling
powerless in determining policy and how the fends will being spent on technology, feel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
that the burden of the actual work falls in their laps. In considering Part A and Part B
of the Influence Mapping form, the resarcfaer sees a trend in the area of access. It seems
the closer the access to a particular source (teacher, school, district, state, nation), the
more influence that source is perceived to have. For instance, in Part A of the Influence
Mapping, the researcher saw that colleagues (teachers), site technology coordinators, and
the district Technology Coordinator were viewed as the key people/resource to provide
useful information while the Federal government (which tends to be difficult to access)
was the least influential Likewise, in Part B, the teachers, the district, and the state were
viewed as having the greatest impact while the Federal government was viewed like
some abstract entity having little impact on technology integration.
Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy. Programs, and Plans
The Researcher Rating Form titled “Teacher Knowledge of Technololgy Policy,
Programs, and Plans,” Appendix I, was used to rate teachers5 awareness of policy as it
relates to technology. Based upon data gathered in six interviews, a score was assigned
to the level of knowledge demonstrated. In the table below, the Applied Technology
Magnet (ATM) teachers are the “high end” users of technology. The General Education
(GE) teachers are the “emerging” users o f technology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Table 15 Researcher Rating Averages - Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy,
Programs, and Plans
1-highest level o f knowledge, 2=some knowledge, 3=moderate level of knowledge, 4=somewhat low level
'.I.*'
ATM
Teacher
#1
ATM
Teacher
#3
GE
Teacher
#5
I _ _ __ .— _ __ 5
Average
Score for
All
Teachers
federal 4 5 ' 3 5 3 5 " 4.2
State ' 2 ' 4 3 3 5 3.5
District 1 2 2 4 3 3 2.5
School : 1 2 • 1 ■ 3 1 . 2 1.6
Classroom 1
'j 2
3 3 2.3
The data included in Table 15 revealed the following:
Federal Policy. Programs, and Plans
The teachers, on average, were rated a 4.2, somewhat low level of knowledge,
about Federal programs. This low level of knowledge was evident among all teachers
interviewed, including the “high end” users.
State Policy and Programs
The teachers, on average, were rated a 3.5, moderate level o f knowledge, about
state policy and programs. Most teachers knew about The California Technology
Assistance Program (CTAP) because the staff at DeMilo Middle School had recently
gone on-line to complete a CTAP2 electronic survey.
District Policy. Programs, and Plans
Teachers knew that the District Technology Plan existed, but detailed knowledge
of plan components varied. The average score for all teachers was 2.5, representing some
knowledge of district policy. In a more detailed analysis, the researcher determined that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
the teachers who teach in the ATM program (high end users) were more
knowledgeable about the details of the Technology Plan.
School Policy. Programs, and Plans
Teachers were very knowledgeable of school policy and programs with an overall
rating o f 1.6, the highest level of knowledge. The teachers, even those not considered to
be “high end” users were aware of the programs at the school and how they applied to the
school, teachers, and students.
Classroom Use
Teacher were rated by the researcher as 2.3, some knowledge of how policy
affects classroom use of technology. ATM teachers regularly use technology in the
classroom according to policy, relying on the information to formulate lesson plans. In
fact, the ATM program teachers have their own set o f standards which serve as a
planning tool to implement the technology program. Teachers in the general program,
however, had slightly less knowledge and were rated a 3, moderate level of knowledge.
Those teachers’ use o f technology in their classrooms comply with policy “when
necessary.”
The findings from the Researcher Rating Form developed an explanation to
findings from the Influence Mapping. As previously discussed, teachers viewed the
Federal government as being the least influential in providing useful information to
support technology policy implementation. The findings here reveal that teachers are not
even knowledgeable o f what policy and programs the Federal government provides.
Thus, it is easy to understand why interviewees don’t see the Federal government as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9 3
having any real impact on classroom use of technology. The researcher certainly does
not suggest that the Federal government has no impact on technology in schools across
the nation, but fabler, teachers in this case study do not perceive the Federal government
as being impactful.
Findings for Technology Questionnaire
Research question one was also addressed with respect to findings for policy
perceptions and understandings, specifically in the context of teachers’ knowledge. A
total of 33 out of 51 teachers responded to a 28-item survey prepared by the research
cohort. Questions 1-11 related to “Technology in the Classroom.” Those results are
presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Questions 1-11 Category Averages - Technology in the Classroom
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
c
m
m
2.79 2.88
Another way of viewing these data are presented in Table 16.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Table 16 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology in the
Classroom
l=Stron«!y Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4= Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree _ _ _ _ _
€ ^ e$ ar? ■ Survey Question Average
- rig > u & i ___________________ Response
• Enthuse I Teachers in my school are enthusiastic about 233,.
technology and its use in the classroom.
! .He Teachers in my school use technology in their • " 2 5
classroom daily.
I
Promise , Technology has lived up to its ’ ’ promise" in the 3.39"
school setting.
1 darned Teachers who use technology frequently in their , 1 Mi
classrooms learned to use it through their own
^ _ _ _ _ _ experimentation or prior knowledge._____________ . '
Tangh* Teachers who use technology frequently in their 2,7
‘ ' classrooms learned to use it through professional
• development opportunities offered by the district ,
'_ _ - ; or school. _____ _
Plan '' Teachers who use technology well have learned . 3 J
how to use it because the school technology plan
was executed well.
Cw^spos Technology use in my classroom has positively 2 27.
: ; affected:; student; learning; ;
Scholpos Technology use in my school has positively 2.4
_ ___ _ ' affected student learning. _________________ y _
feputl j Teachers have the opportunity to participate and 2.79
' ‘ j provide input in the school technology plan. .....
. Iran!m - Teachers should determine how technology - "i.67
• programs are implemented and how technology
^ funds are used in classrooms._________________ _ _ _ _ _
Saneve1 , ■ If a family member were attending the school - 7/tZ
‘ , where I teach, I would be satisfied with the
; level of technology use at the school.
Discussion of Findings for Technology in the Classroom
These results showed that respondents strongly believed that teachers primarily
learned how to use technology through experimentation and prior knowledge. They also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
strongly agreed that teachers “should” determine how technology programs are
implemented and how funds are used. Teachers were less adamant, yet still agreed
somewhat with the high level of enthusiasm at their school; their daily use of technology;
the effectiveness of professional development in training teachers; the positive effect of
technology on student learning; the opportunities available to provide input in technology
planning; and their level of satisfaction with the types of technology used at their school.
Teachers were neutral about technology living up to its “promise” in the school setting.
Additionally, teachers were not confident that they learned how to use technology
because the plan (policy) was executed well.
Questions 12-18 related to “Technology in the School.” These results are charted
in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Questions 12-18 Category Averages - Technology in the School
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another way of viewing these data are presented in Table 17.
9 6
Table 17 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology in the School
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=NeutraI or Don’t Know, 4=Somewbat
Disagree. 5=Strongly Disagree
SM M W H M
D e fe t‘ Am frzl*
Survey Question
Leaders at my school provide a clear vision of
............................ how to use technology in the classroom. ___
My school technology plan has had a direct
. impact in my classroom.____________________
School site administrators should determine how
technology programs are implemented and how
technology funds are used in classrooms._______
School site administrators are enthusiastic about
____ w ( technology and its use in the classroom__________
* School site administrators spend too much time
; implementing technology programs.___________
I feel like I have the support of the school when I
request technology assistance or want to
experiment with technology in my classroom.
The school has provided sufficient funds for
______________ technology purchases and staff development.
Discussion of Findings for Technology in the School
These results revealed that respondents agreed somewhat that they were supported
by the school when technology assistance was requested. Teachers also believed that
school site administrators were enthusiastic about technology use at the school. Teachers
took no position (neutral) on whether leaders at DeMilo Middle School provided a clear
vision of how to use technology in the classroom. Teachers also took no position
(neutral) on the Technology Plan’s impact on their school’s use of technology. Teachers
disagreed somewhat that too much time was being spent on implementing technology
programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Questions 19-24 dealt with “Technology and the District.” The results are
included in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Questions 19-24 Category Averages - Technology and the District
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
5 1
3.73 3.67 1
c ^ 1 3 1 5
1 3 -2^42----
s :
3.33
3.03
( I 1. 1
n ; ; ;
/■# &
^
/ ■ < A
4 f
A
Another way o f viewing these data are presented in Table 18.
Table 18 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology and the
District
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
.
Figure 3___
Survey Question Average
Teacher
V1sion2 District leaders provide a clear vision of how to
use technology in the classroom.
: Administrators are enthusiastic about technology
and its use in the classroom.
:: I feel like I have district support when I request
technology assistance or want to experiment with
:.;chnology in my school or classroom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Table 18 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology and the
District (cont.)
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutrai or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
_______ _______Disagree, 5-Strongly Disagree_______________
tnptttl • _ Teachers have the opportunity to participate and-; • • 3 33
• < provide input into the district technology plan.
Expert?** 1 _, District administrators should determine how 3.'73
technology programs are implemented and how
technology funds are used in classrooms.
Fuisds2 , ; The District has provided sufficient funds to i f> 7
, _ _ ■ .schools for technology purchases and staff
. ~ K ..' development._____________________________________
Discussion of Findings for Technology and the District
These results revealed that teachers agree somewhat that, like school site
administrators, central office administrators are enthusiastic about the use of technology
in schools. Teachers were neutral on the support and vision that the district provides.
Teachers were also neutral, but leaning towards disagreeing with the idea that district
administrators should determine how technology programs are implemented. Teachers
were not confident that funds for technology provided by the district were sufficient.
The last portion of the Teacher Questionnaire, questions 25-28, focused on
“Technology and the State and Nation.” Those results are included in Figure 4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Figure 4 Questions 25-28 Category Averages - Technology and the State and
Nation
l=Strongiy Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
I
IMPACT2 EXPERTS3 FUNDS3 FUNDS4
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
Another way of viewing these data are presented in Table 19.
Table 19 Teacher Questionnaire: Perceptions of Policy - Technology and the
State and Nation
l=Strongly Agree, 2=Somewhat Agree, 3=Neutral or Don’t Know, 4=Somewhat
Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
f Categoiy Survey Question Average
i'.te."-;:.-.-.-;’- v i r i "
r ~ - A ' sc
|lmpael2 i State and national technology policy and ' 2.76
I____________ _______ programs have had a direct impact on my school.___________ _
I Experts3 ■ State and national educational experts should 3.61
I ! determine how technology programs are
I implemented and how funds are used in
I ____ c l a s s r o o m s . ___________________________
{FundsS States have provided sufficient funds to schools 3.82
I _______________ for technology purchases and staff development. ____
I Funds4 The national government has provide sufficient 3.79
I i funds to schools for technology purchases and
I _____________staff development.________________________________________
Discussion o f Findings for Technology and the State and Nation
Teachers agreed somewhat that state and national technology policy impacts the
school. Previous instruments revealed that teachers believed national policy had very
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
little influence on the classroom, but here, teachers reveal that despite their lack of
knowledge of Federal policy, they assume that there must be some impact on the school
as a whole. Teachers leaned toward disagreeing with the idea of state and national
experts making decisions on implementation matters. Also, teachers were not confident
that the state and national governments have provided sufficient funds to schools for
technology purchases and professional development.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Research question one asked, “What is the district technology plan design?” The
focus was on technology policy in the form of the District Technology Plan. The
researcher evaluated the plan through the lens established by the CDE (2001) for key
components of a comprehensive plan. Teacher knowledge and perceptions were
examined using various instruments. Review of written documents, Resarcher Rating
Forms: “Technology Policy and Implementation” and “Teacher Knowledge of Policy,
Programs, and Plans,” Influence Mapping, and a 28-question Likert-scale Technology
Questionnaire were all utilized in the effort to answer research question one. This
triangulation of data yielded reliable findings. Key findings are summarized below:
> The Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan contains all of the
critical areas as outlined by the California Department of Education (CDE).
> In comparing the district’s plan to the CDE’s model plan, the averaged score for each
component is included in Table2Q:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Table 20 Technology Plan Component Averaged Scores
l=Never, 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Technology Han Components Averaged Ratings for
District Technology Plan
(summary of previous
researcher rating forms)
1 , Curriculum 3.4 (Sometimes)
1 1 . .Professional Development 3.1 (Sometimes)
III. Infrastructure. Hardware, Technology Support, and
Software
4.5 (Often)
.H M H B B M M M B .I l l .1 1 1 1 1 ...ill..1 .1 .1 .ill..1 .1 .1 .1 .1 ...1 .1 ..1 .1 .. ..1 ...Ill
4.2 (Often)
V. Monitoring and Evaluation 3.4 (Sometimes)
The average score for the total plan is 3.7 (Sometimes). In other words, the
District’s Technology Plan, although it contains all major required componenets, only
addresses those components thoroughly “some” of the time.
> Most interviewees did not perceive the Federal government to be a major source of
influence regarding technology.
> Teachers viewed colleagues (other teachers) as being very influential to educational
technology implementation.
> In the HVUSD, the most influential actor at the district level wass the Director o f
Technology and the most influential actor at the case study school was the
Technology Coordinator.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
> The perception in HVUSD is that teacehrs were not at all influential in decisions
regarding policy and funding for technology, yet they were most influential when it
came to implementation
> Teachers believed that since they were perceived to be most influential to
implementation of policy, then they should also be most influential in setting policy.
> Teachers at DeMilo Middle School were aware that the District Technology Plan
existed and many have reviewed it, but most are not familiar with the specifics of the
plan. However, teachers at DeMilo were very knowledgeable about their school5 s
technology program, the Applied Technology Magnet (ATM) program
> DeMilo teachers who teach within the technology magnet are more knowledgeable of
policy at all legvels (Federal, state, and district) than those who do not teach within
the magnet.
> Teachers at DeMilo felt supported by the school in the areaa o f technology.
> Teachers did not feel that the nation, state, or district has provided sufficient funds to
schools for technology.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked: To what extent has the district technology
plan been implemented? Several data sets were developed to address this question.
Those include: Researcher Rating Forms (“Technology Implementation Variables” and
“Technology Policy and Implementation”), Level o f Technology Integration (LoTi), the
Teacher Stages of Concern Survey, the Technology Questionnaire, and data extracted
from interviews.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Findings For Researcher Rating Form: “Technology Implementation Variables”
The researcher, to examine the extent to which implementation of the District
Technology Plan occurred, considered several key variables:
> Plan for Technology Use
> Implementer Disposition
> Motivation
> Sources of Information
> Leadership Role
> Interaction with Other Levels
> Plan Policy Goals Being Met
> Overall Effect and Influence from this Level
The identification o f these variables and subsequent construction o f the Researcher
Rating Form, Appendix I, were done by Scott Price, Ph D. cohort student, and were based
on research of Hall and Herd’s (2001) variables for implementation efforts. The
researcher rated the district, school, and classroom. Those results are illustrated in Table
21 .
Table 21 Researcher Rating Averages for "Technology Implementation
l=1cw. 2=soEicvvhat low
Variables"
?=sooc matches, 4=somewhat higher. 5=uigh
District Classroom
4 % ' 3
, 5 3
4 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Table 21 Researcher Rating Averages for "Technology Implementation
Variables" (cent)
I='ow 2=somcyhat low. 3=some matches, 4=somewhat higher. 5
Sources of InformaiS&r ‘ 4 f 3
^ ■ ■
f t S
4
S itu ;:
4
IK ifr-
Plan Policy Ooals Being Met
' ' * ' j g g g :
Overall Effect and influence fe ta this
Level '
TOTAL AVERAGt SCORE ‘ ’ 4.1
These scores revealed that the district average is somewhat higher than the school
and classroom. This suggested that implementation efforts at the school and classroom
levels have failed to meet the stated objectives o f the District Technology Plan. The
researcher noticed an interesting finding. On two variables, namely the “Plan for
Technology Use” and “Interaction with other Levels,” actual classroom implementation
efforts were rated higher than the school overall. This is likely due to the fact that
Applied Technology Magnet program teachers have a plan, curriculum, and professional
development and collaboration opportunities that are not afforded to the entire staff.
Findings for Levels o f Technology Implementation (LoTi)
Dr. Christopher Moersch (1995) created The Levels o f Technology Integration
(LoTi) to provide a fair approximation o f teacher behaviors related to technology
implementation. Moersch broke the levels down in the following way:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Non-use: Existing technology is predominantly text-based (e.g., ditto sheets,
chalkboard, overhead projector). There is a perceived lack of time and/or access to
technology.
Awareness: Computer-based applications have little or no relevance to the
individual teacher’s instructional program.
Exploration: Technology-based tools serve as a supplement to the existing
instructional program.
Infusion: Technology-based tools, including databases, spreadsheets, multimedia
applications, and desktop publishing augment isolated instructional events.
Integration: Technology-based tools are integrated in a manner that provides rich
context for students’ understanding o f the pertinent concepts, themes, and processes.
Expansion: Technology access is extended beyond the classroom. Classroom
teachers actively elicit technology applications and networking from business enterprises
and governmental agencies.
Refinement: Technology is perceived as a process, product, and tool to help
students solve authentic problems related to an identified real-world problem or issue.
LoTi levels were assessed via 6 interviews, three with DeMilo Middle School
Teachers in the Applied Technology Magnet (ATM) Program, and 3 in the general
program. The researcher identified two teachers as being at the “Exploration” level
defined by Moersch (1995) as deploying technology-based tools to serve as a supplement
to existing instructional programs. Those two teachers’ use o f technology is described
below.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Teacher 1 — General Program
This math teacher reached the “Exploration” level She uses her classroom
computers as extension activities. Students rotate to the “computer center” to play
educational math games and enrichment activities. Students who finish their classroom
assignments early are allowed to use the computers.
Teacher 2 - General Program
This special needs teacher reached the “Exploration” level. He uses computers
for educational games, enrichment, and assistive technology (software packages that read
aloud to students) for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. His students use
the computer daily in this manner.
Three o f the six teachers reached the “Infusion Level” identified by Moersch
(1995) as employing technology-based tools in the classroom to augment isolated
instructional events. Those teachers’ use o f technology is described below.
Teacher 3 - ATM Program
This computer teacher reached the “Infiision” level. She uses technology-based
tools including databases, spreadsheets, graphing packages, probes, calculators,
multimedia applications, and desktop publishing applications. The use o f these tools are
typically isolated activities used to teach students how to use the software.
Teacher 4 — ATM Program
This computer teacher reached the “Infusion” level. Her students use the Internet
regularly for research and her students post original poetry and essays on a class website.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
She teaches using a variety of technology-based tools such as desktop publishing and
spreadsheets. Her students are presently working on electronic portfolios.
Teacher 5 - General Program
This English teacher reached the “Infusion” stage. Her students use computers
for word processing and to participate in the Accelerated Reader (AR) program. Students
read books and then take a test on the computer for that book. If a student passes, he/she
moves on to the next book. If the student does not pass the test, he/she has to review the
book and take the test over. Students have a goal of reading three to four books per
month (and pass the computerized comprehension test for each book). She says that the
AR program is very effective in increasing students reading ability. She hopes to acquire
more books and software to expand her reading program.
Only one teacher functioned at the “Integration” level defined by Moersch (1995)
as integrating technology-based tools in a manner that provides a rich content for
students’ understanding o f the pertinent, themes, concepts and practices.
Teacher 6 — ATM Program
This science teacher was the only one to reach the “Integration” level. He teaches
his lessons regularly through Powerpoint presentations. He is a Techno Learning
Teacher who only has five computers in the classroom. However, he uses Smartboard
which projects his laptop screen to a large display area for all students to interact with.
His students get booklets and role play a particular scientist. Then students have to solve
authentic problems. His use o f technology-based tools including laser discs are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
integrated in a manner that provides a rich content for students’ understanding of
pertinent concepts.
As a school, the researcher rated DeMilo teachers as having reached the
“Infusion” implementation level. There are a lot o f good things going on in the area of
technology at the school. The researcher did not find that the teachers had fully
“integrated” technology into the curriculum, but they are certainly headed in that
direction. The researcher found that those teachers who teach in the Applied Technology
Magnet (ATM) program were a lot closer to full implementation o f the district
technology plan than those who do not. This finding may be illustrative of the fact that
ATM teachers tend to be the “front line” technology users and promoters. By extension,
it is possible that adequate attention to professional development and/or technology
training for those magnet teachers may be responsible for this phenomenon.
Findings for the Stages o f Concern Survey
The Stages of Concern survey instrument was completed by thirty-three teachers.
Contained in Table 22 are frequency distributions for each item on the survey. A
discussion o f the percentage of teachers at each o f the five “Stages o f Concern” regarding
technology deployment, use and implementation will follow. These stages are
Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration, and
Refocusing. In ascending order, the stages speak to the degree of concern and overall
knowledge that teachers possess regarding the myriad issues that surround and impact
upon a school’s use of technology, compliance with a district technology plan, and the
impact of the plan upon teachers and their classroom activities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o 0 0
« ■
.s«
o
3fc *
o
U i
;s %
.— 4
©
to
■' 8
i- .■ i : i |’ ..> I■ ■ *: > . ■ I
■ !j }oj:V icy ; j o j’K I ■'!’••
^ O ! C :!' 5!; O ! O
\ . ' t * | 1 < |‘ ‘ 1 K i j j 1 i 5
O U . s'.’ ! s' - 1 : f..? O I O
S t s - *
. ' v i
D O C
y'\y\ ■
00
K 3 K >
*
£ U >
*
K )
M
'
M
Q Q M o
o O w O o
.......
ijJ "tr1
H
u >
4 k C - 0 0 < “ 5
o O o o o
" C J * 4 5 s ,
__
G o
—
i -
4 ^ N O
, l > w t
0
1
O o c:;
! c * o
W )
h o
. .
,
8 \ > * . >O
1
J---
.
C h *
. . *
5
*- 1 * 0
:{ ’ ' "
W / . . ;
i : ; ! j i i
! i i ! i s
i . w ] .... i i _ [ 1 ,,
wTuTl o 'n ^ lio HETC S |X
I I • ' 5
Q \ i . . ' i ,1 s . r u i » .j * ?
© ■.! i ! c - o 11.1 '
i
; h ;? , . ‘ i - . i- i 1 7 . : !(."
^-J L J u ± —
9 H L
Survey Respondent
Average o f responses to
questions 3, 6,12,21 & 30
(Awareness).
1
ok
Average o f responses to
[uestions 14,15,23,26 &
35 (Informational).
Average o f responses to
questions 7, 8,13,17 & 33
(Personal).
5
otai
W
Average of responses to
uestions 4,16,25,28 & 34
(Management).
Average o f responses to
questions 1,11,19,24 & 32
(Consequence).
Average of responses to
questions 5, 10,18,27& 29
(Collaboration).
Average of responses to
questions 2, 9 ,2 0 ,22 & 31
(Refocusing).
Frequency o f responses
greater than 3.5 for
averages 0 thru 4. >3 = DK
Gray - >2 = Med Gray - >1
Lt Gray
o
v ©
Table 2 2 Stages o f Concent Survey Responses b y Average a n d Frequency
110
Table 2 2 Stages of Concern Survey Responses by Average and Frequency (cont.)
#31 ic.2P ;1 20 T.50 12.00 K - i
A
o
to
o
0.60
#32 3 , ^ * 1 0
4 ^
#33 1.20 2 8
An analysis of the data in Table 22 revealed the following results:
Awareness (Stage 0) Responses to questions 3,6,12, 21, and 30 revealed
information about the Awareness stage. Eighteen percent (six teachers) of those
surveyed reached this Stage of Concern. These teachers are aware of technology plan
and implementation efforts, but they are focused on other matters and are therefore not
very concerned about the District Technology Plan.
Informational (Stage 1) Responses questions 14, 15, 23, 26, and 35 revealed
information about the Informational stage. Twenty-four percent (eight teachers) of those
surveyed reached this stage. These teachers are interested in learning more about the
District Technology Plan. They are particularly interested in learning more about the
requirements of the plan.
Personal (Stage 2) Responses to questions 7, 8,13,17, and 33 revealed
information about the Personal stage. Twenty-one percent (7 teachers) of those surveyed
readched this stage. These teachers are focused on the effects of implementing the
Technology Plan. They are concerned with how their roles will change once full
implementation occurs.
Management (Stage 3) Responses to questions 4, 16, 25, 28, and 34 revealed
information about the Management stage. Six percent (2 teachers) of DeMilo teachers
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Ill
reached this stage. These teachers are concerned about how to manage their time and
efforts and the effect that this commitment will have on them.
Consequences (Stage 4) Responses to questions 1,11,19,24, and 32 revealed
information about the Consequence stage. Thirty percent (10 teachers) of respondents
reached this stage. These teachers are concerned about how students will be affected by
technology implementation. They are curious to know the consequences of their efforts.
No teachers at DeMilo Middle School reached the Collaboration or Refocusing
Stage of Concern (SOC). To the researcher, full implementation seems unlikely until
more teachers reach these higher Stages of Concern. The highest percentage of teachers
fell in the Consequence SOC. This revealed that although DeMilo Middle School’s
implementation efforts have failed to meet the objectives of the written plan, they are
certainly on their way to foil implementation and integration of educational technology.
Findings For Researcher Rating Form: “Technology Policy and Implementation”
This Researcher Rating Form was employed to determine to what extent the
District Technology Plan has been implemented at the site level. Tables 23-27 below
presents these ratings by each component of the technology plan. The first column of
each Table represents subcomponents as outlined in the Researcher Rating Form. The
second column represents the “intended” level of implementation as designed in the
Harbor View Unified School District’s Technology Plan (and as discussed in detail in the
research question one discussion). Finally, the third column represents actual
implementation as observed by the researcher. The second and third columns also serve
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1 2
as a visual comparison of district design (intended) versus school implementation
(actual). Commentary will follow.
Table 23 Researcher Rating - Curriculum
l=Never, 2=Infrequentiy, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Subcomponent District Plan
(As Intended)
as implemented
4 (Often) - 3 (Sometimes).
3.3 (Sometimes)
3 (Sometimes)
3.6 (Sometimes)
3.3 (Sometimes)
3.4 (Sometimes)
A tRM N ffM
Integration of technology into the curriculum can be one of the most challenging
tasks for a school to accomplish. The findings outlined in Table 23 reflect that the
District Technology Plan, by design, addresses curriculum in the manner outlined by the
CDE only some of the time. Actual implementation of curriculum integration occurs less
frequently. There were many examples of technology integration observed at the school.
Those examples include the Accelerated Reader Program, Applied Technology Magnet
(ATM) Standards portfolios, Electronic portfolios, web site posting of work for parent
review, PowerPoint presentations (teachers and students), authentic problem-solving
through computerized science labs, and curriculum benchmarks for technology. The
greatest strength in this area at DeMille Middle School was the organization of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
113
curriculum through the ATM program. This organization included impressive
coordination from the elementary through the high school. This coordination is evident
even in the ATM Mission Statement: “The ATM Mission is to prepare students for
careers in high technology. This will be achieved with a grade 4 through post secondary
“Tech Prep” program sequence. This program sequence includes applied mathematics,
science, and applied communication. The program emphasizes manufacturing
technology, computer technology, problem solving, teamwork, and career development.”
Through the ATM program, students at DeMilo learn computer applications (database,
word processing, graphic design, Lego Logo programming, spreadsheet), video
production, conduct hands-on investigations, manipulate scientific instruments and
collect and analyze data using the scientific thinking process. They design, manufacture,
and produce using automated manufacturing systems o f computer-assisted drafting and
manufacturing (CAD/CAM), computer numerical control mills and lathe and robotics.
Students create HyperCard and laser disc stacks o f information to include sound, graphics,
and digitized photographs. It would seem then that DeMille would have been rated by
the researcher much higher based on the above description o f technology offerings.
However, not all students are exposed to such a vast amount o f technology. For this
reason, the reasearcher identified this as a weakness. If a student is not enrolled in the
ATM program, integration o f technology into the curriculum is minimal. In fact, those
teachers who did not teach within the magnet noted that historically, they did not have
access to technology. The ATM teachers received all the equipment and training. This
year, the school made a commitment to furnish every class with conmputers and acces to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
the Internet, in addition, the district is offering more training to all teachers
throughout the district.
The second conceptual element of the district technology plan is professional
development. Four items are contained in this aspect of the district plan. Table 24
presents the Researcher Rating results for these components.
Table 24 Researcher Rating - Professional Development
l=Never, 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Subcomponent District Plan
(As Intended)
As Implemented
Teaching/learning
productivity
3.3 (Sometimes) * ^ ■ r * “A----- . " ‘•V ’
Personal/administrative
.......................... ........i n ... ...........
3.3 (Sometimes) ' 3 (Sometimes)
Fundi tig 2.6 (Infrequently) 2.3 (Infrequently)
Planning goal-setting
monitoring
3 (Sometimes)
CATEGORY AVERAGE 1 3.1 (Sometimes) 2.6 (Infrequently)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
technology magnet relied heavily on district-led technology. The researcher observed
that many ATM teachers have expertise in various areas o f technology, but saw no
evidence that those teachers shared that information through school-led training.
The third component of the district plan addresses issues related to infrastructure,
hardware, technical support, and software. The Researcher Rating Form was used to
identify the following data.
Table 25 Reasearcher Rating - Infrastructure* Hardware, Technical Support and
Software
l=Never, 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Subcomponent District Plan
(As Intended)
As implemented
' Networking 5 (Always) 4 (Often)
Hr.:.:-. ;'c.T,.T..-.tv: v . i . v , . < 4 (Often)
T,:. i t . f: 4 (Often) yfr. r t
Software ' ' 4.3 (Often) .'i.vv-tj? v.t:
Technical support 5 (Always) ;
CATEGORY AVERAGE 4.5 (Often) 3.3 (Sometimes)
Infrastmctture, Hardware, Tech Support, and Software was the highest rated area.
The district established and maintained high standards for their infrastructure and lauded
itself (according to the Director of Technology) to be one of the best districts for
maintaining infrastructure in the state. All schools are folly networked and this is evident
at DeMIlo Middle School with six Internet drops in every classroom which was identified
as a strength at the school A weak area relates to the fact that not all teachers know how
to use the equipment. The researcher found that they were “all dressed up with nowhere
to go.” However, if a teacher was knowledgeable on the use of the equipment, there was
software available throughout the district and school In addition, with a site Technology
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Coordinator, the teachers did have support, although because the Technology
Coordinator was also a full-time teacher, the researcher found that she did not have
adequate time to support the teachers adequately.
The fourth conceptual element of the district plan addressed funding and budget
issues. The Researcher Rating effort generated the following ratings.
Table 26 Researcher Mating - Funding and Budget
l=Never, 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Subcomponent District Plan
(As Intended)
As Implemented
General/categorical budgets 5 (Always) 3.3 (Sometimes)
Partnerships 4.7 (Often) 3.6 (Sometimes)
Grants 3.7 (Sometimes) 3 (Sometimes)
Budget process 3.3 (Sometimes) 2.6 (Infrequently) '
CATEGORY AVERAGE' 4,2 (Often) 3,1 (Sometimes)
Funding and Budget was another strong area for the district. Ongoing efforts to
provide funding for technology, especially through grant writng, was evident. The
district also successfully passed a bond measure that contributed to technology in the
district. The school’s rating was lower than the district. There was no evidence that the
school sought funding through partnerships o f their own. The school is involved in
partnerships, but only those established by the district. The school, however, did
dedicated monies from general funds as well as categorical funding to technology
acquisition which was an area of strength.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
117
The fifth component of the district’s technology plan design assessed
monitoring and evaluation activities. The Researcher Rating Form generated the
following categorical assessments.
Table 27 Researcher Rating - Monitoring and Evaluation
l=Never, 2=Tnfrequenlly, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always
Subcomponent District Plan
(As Intended)
Monitoring 2.7 (Infrequently) 2.6 (Infrequently)
v;v; ; 3.3 (Sometimes) 3.3 (Sometimes)
; ■ ■ ■ .j r v r.utcv.r.&r 3.7 (Sometimes) J J (ri'riv ■jf.'-.l/j
(/■ :? .d b a-:.!-- 3.7 (Sometimes)
vT b-riStri T U 'T A rir, 3.4 (Sometimes) 2.9 (Infrequently)
These data again, are indicative o f differentials between the stated intentions of
the district technology plan and the achievement o f plan objectives at the classroom level
The school was rated lower than the district in monitoring and evaluation. The
researcher, once again, points out that ATM monitoring and evaluation is strong while
the remaining o f the school is weak. This produces an overall rating that revealed that
DeMilo Middle School conducted monitoring and evaluation infrequently.
In brief, it would appear that significant differentials exist between the
relationship o f the design o f the district technology plan and its implementation at the
school. The most significant differential is observed in the area o f curriculum.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
118
Administrator Technology Questionnaire
Two site administrators were asked to complete a 28-item survey instrument
developed by the research cohort regarding technology in the classroom, the school, the
district, and the state and the nation. Those responses are charted in Table 28.
Table Site 28 Administrator Questionnaire - Perceptions of Policy at District,
State, and National Levels
1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Somewhat agree, 3 = Neutral or Don’t Know,4 = Somewhat Disagree, 5 =
Strongly Disagree
daily.
learned to use it thtough fear- own experimentation or prior
Average Site
Administrator
Response
I
2.5
A Teachers who tise technology well have learned how to use
c ■ ___ ' .';____j _ _ _ _ _ ___/_____
1.5
2.5
1.5
1 5
1.5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
119
Table Site 28 Administrator Questionnaire - Perceptions of Policy at District,
State, and National Levels (cont)
1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Somewhat agree, 3 = Neutral or Don’t Know,4 = Somewhat Disagree, 5 =
. classroom • ’ - •■
)4 . S ch d o l sR e ad srittk traion ; should d eterm ine h o w 1
15. School sRe admini abators art erttfateriastie abtnrr and -its use 1
implementing technology programs _______ ^ _______ ______<____
17.1 feel like I h&ve4he'support of the school when f tequest 1.5
m royc&ssroom . _ t L __
technology in the ckssnxmt _; ‘ ^ _ ^ __________ _____________________
20. Admmklfaters in thy district are enthusiastic about • 1.5
I "^^^^7 '■ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ■ :":^;':"7; ^ ^ :^ ^ ^
22 'Teachers haye the eppomiflity to participate and provide ‘ 2.5
23 Qfomct admRtt&r?turb ,4>«:M deieftrtpe low techffiTogy , 2
programs are implemented and how technology fobds are used
_ \, ______________________
24. The District has' provided sufijcieni funds to schools jot 2.5
t i i: i; : : : y i i i i 1 1 ; : : : i i 1 : ; : : : : ; : i y: : : ; :
: how technology programs are implemented and now txmds are .'
?§. The national gommmtiw has provided suffjeierrt funds to - 3
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
120
Using this five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 =
strongly disagree, the administrators were most convinced that a positive response to
technology in the classroom was present in their school. With respect to technology in
the school itself, administrators were convinced that a clear vision of technology and its
use in the context of school activities had been achieved, but these two administrators
were less sure that the district as well as the state and nation had adopted and/or
supported technology policies and plans.
Summary o f Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two asked, ‘To what extent has the district technology plan
been implemented?” The focus was on the implementatin of technology policy in the
form of the District Technology Plan. The researcher evaluated implementation through
the lens established by the district in its design for technology integration (Technology
Plan). Inplementation was examined using various instruments. Resarcher Rating Forms:
“Technology Implementation Variables” and ‘Technology Policy and Implementation,”
Moersch’s Levels ofTechnology Implementation (LoTi), Hail and Hord’s Stages of
Concern, and a 28-question Likert-scale Technology Questionnaire for Administrators
were all utilized in the effort to answer research question two. This triangulation of data
yielded reliable findings. Key findings are summarized below:
> Teachers at DeMilo Middle are aware of the District Technology Pla, but are not
familiar with specific details o f the plan.
> Implementation of the district technology plan at the school level has not reached
plan goals and objectives at the present time.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
121
> ATM teachers are closer to foil implementation than are teachers who teach in the
general program at DeMilo Middle School.
> ATM teachers have historically been provided with greater access to equipment and
training which may explain the obvious differential in skill levels o f ATM versus
general education teachers.
> As s school, DeMilo Middle reached the “Infusion” level on the LoTL This level is
defined as using “technology-based tools, including databases, spreadsheets,
multimedia applications, and desktop publishing to augment isolated instructional
events.”
> The highest percentage of teachers were on the Consequence Stage of Concern.
Many teachers are concerned about how students will be affected by technology
implementation.
> No teachers at DeMilo Middle reached the highest Stages of Concern: Collaboration
or Refocusing.
> Teachers as well as Site Administrators recognize certain differentials between the
stated intent of the technology plan and its actual implementation in the school.
> Site Administrators appear to be far more positive regarding the overall
implementation status o f the technology plan than are teachers.
On every indicator (Curriculum, Professional Development, Infrastructure,
Hardware, Technology Support, and software, Funding and Budget, and Monitring and
Evaluation), the school has not met goals and objectives for implementation as outlined
in the District Technology Plan.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
122
Research Question Three
The third research question addressed in this study asked “ What is the
relationship between the district technology plan design, the implementation of the plan,
and classroom use of technology?” This question focused on the relationship between
policy, and school and classroom implementation. Two data sets were employed in
addressing this question. These data sets consisted of interviews and ratings on the
Researcher Rating Form: Technology Policy and Implementation.
Findings from Interviews
Interviews were conducted with the District Technology Curriculum Leader, the
School Site Technology Coordinator, the Director of Information Services, and the
Director of Technology along with several individual teachers. Specific findings indicate
that the District Technology Curriculum Leader and the other professionals involved in
technology plan implementation perceive the plan to be moving forward at an acceptable
pace. Difficulties in plan implementation identified by these key individuals include:
A lack of familiarity at the district and school level with the technology plan
A need for greater emphasis on professional development and a needs assessment
using the state CTAP 2 technology assessment
A lack of uniform school-level incorporation of technology into the curriculum
A need for greater fimding for technology plan implementation
> A need for improvement in the identification of the relationship between educational
technology and curriculum content as well as student performance standards.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
123
Teachers commented on these issues as well. One teacher stated that
“Resources don’t always go where they’re needed. The computers are on five days a
week in my classroom.. .There are computers elsewhere and kids are just typing. They
aren’t on the network and accessing the available resources.” Another teacher said that
while having five computers in the classroom was “nice,” she would still “benefit from
some advice on how to most effectively use them.” She went on further to state, “I find
it’s a challenge.. .the kids all want to use the computer.. .so either the computers are
sitting there not being used or everyone wants to use them at once. It’s difficult to
manage that.” Still another teacher was quoted as saying, “We need a very strong
professional development program which could help teachers think about their own
teaching and about enhancing their teaching by using computers.” It was clear to the
researcher that at both the district and school level, professional development is perceived
to be the answer to successful implementation of educational technology. This is
illustrated in the following comments made by teachers. “Teachers have to be turned on.
They have to be grabbed somehow. And it can’t just be somebody with a keyboard and
mouse showing something fancy full o f smoke and mirrors.” Another teacher stated,
“The district offers a lot of workshops to learn about computers, but we need release
time. We are very busy and going to workshops after work is tiring. Some teachers are
already in school so they can’t go.” The latter comment brought up the issue of time.
Another teacher also brought the “time” issue to the discussion, “I wish that I had the
time to really learn more about computers, but I just don’t have time... There’s a million
things that we have to focus on and do and unless key time is set aside for teacher
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
124
education, it’s going to be really difficult for this to happen.” As the teachers and the
research suggest, time should be alloted for professional development and for teachers to
collaborate to discuss ways of implementing what was learned.
Access to technology was a theme mentioned throughout several interviews. The
Technology Coordinator at the school site stated adamantly that, “Ideally what every
school should have is access to three computer setups: Computers in the classroom for
daily use...Computer courses where kids are learning to use the software so that when
they use the classroom computers they already know how to use the equipment so the
teachers can focus on teaching content; and then a lab run by a computer specialist where
a teacdher can take the entire class for projects (and have access to the expert for
troubleshooting).” Another teacher, who was upset that her lab time was taken away
suggested, “Some schools purchase a classroom set of laptops and put them on ‘roll-
aways’ and these can be checked out by teachers. I think that’s a good idea since we
have very little access to the labs because now classes are being taught there.” Equity
was a subtheme is the area of access. One teacher stated, “When teachers show a
commitment to using technology a significant amount of the time, the school should find
a way to provide that technology for that teacher or that classroom.” The researcher got
the impression that some teachers at DeMilo Middle School in the past have had greater
access to technology than others. This was confirmed by a comment made by another
teacher, “The teachers who were not a part o f the magnet for a long time had the worst
and oldest computers in the whole school. It wasn’t until this year that we finally
received quality computers in all classes, not just the ATM classes.” This upheld the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
125
finding that ATM teachers are a lot closer to full implementation of the district
technology plan than those who are not, and access to technology at DeMilo is yet
another reason why these teachers are more advanced users of technology.
Based on data gathered from interviews, knowledge regarding the existence of the
District’s technology plan design seems to be relatively high, though actual
implementation of plan elements or components lags behind the goals and objectives of
the written plan itself. This difference between Technology Plan intent and actual
implementation is revealed as significant. As discussed in the research questions two, on
virtually every indicator o f performance, the school appears to have failed as yet to meet
its stated plan objectives. Teachers’ knowledge of policy, program and plans as
evidenced in interviews has not translated to adequate classroom use of technology.
Knowledge without corresponding practice and implementation is insufficient. Thus the
relationship between the district technology plan and classroom use is nonlinear in
nature. In other words, translating the plan into practice at the level of both the classroom
and, as noted in research question two, the school site, represents a major challenge.
Findings for Researcher Rating Form: Technology Policy and Implementation Match
For research question one and two, the Researcher Rating Form was utilized to
analyze policy (Technology Plan) and implementation. For research question three, to
assess the relationship between the plan, school implementation of the plan, and
classroom use of technology, the researcher (considering all instruments and the
corresponding data) determined to what extent there was a match. Although the
researcher (in the research question one discussion) determined that the Harbor View
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
126
Unified School District’s Technology Plan had a few flaws (as compared to the
CDE’s model plan), the plan nevertheless represented the policy and technology design
of the district. Thus, the researcher compared school implementation and classroom use
of technology to the design as outlined by the district (as opposed to the design outlined
by the CDE). These results are presented in Table 29:
Area I: Curriculum
Table 29 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Curriculum
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
____________________________ 5=Always matched________________________
I Area I: Curriculum
School: Schoolwide curricular norms include technology integration
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Students use technology for information gathering, organizing and
multimedia publishing _____________
3 (Sometimes matched)
School: Administrators include technology use as a daily expectation in observations
and evaluations
I
2 (Infrequently matched)
Classroom: Student and teachers use technology daily as a tool in a variety of
contexts
3 (Sometimes matched)
School: School administrator expectations include technology use for standards-based
instruction
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Teachers develop goals and a specific implementation plan related to
technology use for standards-based instruction______________________________
(Infrermenflymatched)
School: School-wide curricular planning involves technology planning and goals-
setting
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
127
Table 29 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Curriculum (cont.)
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, S^Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_____________________ 5= Always matched________________ _______
_____________________________ 4 (Often matched) _______ _____ ___________
Classroom: Teachers develop timelines and benchmarks for classroom technology
use______________________________________________________________________
_ _ _ _ ^
School: School uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology
_______________________________3 (Sometimes matched)_______________________________
Classroom: Teacher uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate
technology use____________________________________________________________
_______________________________3 (Sometimes matched)_______________________________
In the area of curriculum, there appeared to be a match some of the time. Full
implementation has not been achieved in this area. Based on data gathered from the
various instruments, the researcher has identified the following barriers to full
implementation with curriculum at DeMilo Middle School:
> The Harbor View Unified School District design does not adequately establish a
curriculum and technology integration model.
> Although the district and school have identified technology standards, teachers
appeared to not have a thorough understanding of how technology use related to
specific performance or standards objectives.
> There was a basic lack of an “overall” vision for curriculum integration with
technology at the school (the site administrators felt that the vision was clear, but
teachers tended to disagree as did the reasearcher).
The Applied Technology Magnet (ATM) program offered incredible courses and
opportunities for students to learn about technology. The researcher was impressed with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
128
the amount o f knowledge students could attain if they remained in the ATM program
for several years. However, what the researcher found in most instances was that
technology was introduced for the sake of learning to use the equipment and software
packages opposed to enhancing curriculum content acquisition. Thus, the school needs to
continue to improve in this area.
Area II: Professional Development
Table 30 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Professional
Development
l=Never matched, 2=Tnfrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_______ 5=Always matched________ ___________________
Area II: Professional Development
inu tech
1
School: School provides professional development using technology for improving
standards-based instruction.
2 (Infrequently matched)
Classroom: Teacher seeks professional development using technology for improving
standards-based instruction.
3 (Sometimes matched)
iaF adniinistrathe producthity: Professional
htraih e proficiene) is provided-:,.
School: School provides professional development using technology for personal
&/or administrative proficiency _______________________________________
2 (Infrequently matched)
Classroom: Teacher seeks professional development using technology for personal
&/or administrative proficiency.______________________________ ____________
3 (Sometimes matched)
School: School provides or seeks out funding for tech. professional developr
2 (Infrequently matched)
Classroom: Teacher solicits funding for personal professional development from
external sources.
2 (Infrequently matched)
^ 4 t u t o r t i t o
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
129
Table 30 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Professional
Development (cont.)
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_______ 5=Always matched _________________________
School: Professional development is planned by school, with explicit goals and
ongoing evaluation. _________________ ______________________________
________ 2 (infrequently matched)______________________________
Classroom: Professional development goals are planned and evaluated.
__________________________ 2 (Infrequently matched)__________________________
In the area of professional development, a match with plan and school/classroom
implementation was observed infrequently. DeMilo Middle made few efforts to provide
professional development that was designed by the school. The following barriers were
identified by the researcher:
> Although the district provides ongoing staff development for technology, ther
appeared to be little incentive for teachers to attend
> Teachers were required to use personal time to attend professional development
activities. There were very few professional development days set aside for training
specifically geared towards technology.
> The school had not provided sufficient time nor resources to assist teachers in
overcoming fear and/or resistance to change associated with implementation.
The district recognized weaknesses in the area of professional development. The
researcher saw evidence of work towards increasing class offerings, refining this area of
the plan, and providing time for teachers to benefit form training with the goal of
increasing classroom use of technology.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Area III Infrastructure. Hardware. Technology Support., and Software
130
Table 31 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Infrastructure,
Hardware, Technical Support, and Software
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_ ______________________ 5=Always matched__________________ _
I
School: Schools are fully networked for teacher and student use.
5 (Always matched)
Classroom: Teachers can access information from anywhere in the school or from
home.
Hardware & software stanuar
tech plan and updated annually. Electronic Learning Resources are available to all
sta ff and stu d en ts via a netw ork
School: Purchases hardware only after review by team o f school staff. Administrators
make staff aware o f electronic learning resources. _____
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Teachers participate in maintaining and annually updating hardware and
software standards. Teachers and students take advantage o f productivity tools and/or
courses offered.
3 (Sometimes matched)
Hardware acquisition: Hardware purchased by schools piowdc^ rcitfioiauL ioi
sehool/ckssrooin needs....:
School: Uses research based criteria to place hardware in proper locations for optimal
student learning. _________________ _________ ___________________________
4 (Often matched)
Classroom: Teacher can provide feedback on classroom hardware needs.
4 (Often matched)
i l i l l
School: School supports software purchases made by teachers.
4 (Often matched)
Classroom: Teacher abides by recommendations made by district office when
purchasing for own class. ________________
3 (Sometimes matched)
School: Provides on-site support people to assist teachers with technical support.
3 (Sometimes matched)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
131
Table 31 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Infrastructure,
Hardware, Technical Support, and Software (cont.)
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_____ ______________ 5=Always matched ________________ ________
Classroom: Provide technicians feedback on needed repairs and ongoing problems.
________ 3 (Sometimes matched) _________________________
This area represented a strength in technology in the district, school, and
clasrrom. The physical environment was excellent with ample networked computers for
the “skilled” user. The area where the researcher saw a need for improvement was in
technical support. The technical support person accessible on campus was also a full-time
teacher. Thus, the following barrier was identified:
> The Technology Coordinator does not have enough time to address teacher concerns
about technology in a reasonable amount o f time.
The district offered technical support in a relatively timely manner which helped
to minimize this barrier.
Area IV Funding and Budget
Table 32 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Funding and Budget
l=Never matched, 2=Infrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
5=Always matched
j Area IV: Funding and Budget
School: Regular school site and categorical budgets include technology funding for all
components of tech plan (i.e. curriculum, etc.)__________________________________
__________________________ 3 (Sometimes matched)__________________________
Classroom: Teachers have awareness of budget and adequate resources to successfully
implement technology in the classroom.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
132
Table 32 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Funding and Budget
(cont.) l=Never matched, 2=Tnfrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often
matched, 5-Always matched
[
■
M M
3 (Sometimes matched)
j
School: School seeks partnerships with local business groups for technology resources.
4 (Often matched)
Classroom: Teachers invite local partners to participate in student learning.
School: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site needs.
3 Grants' G rants are pursued to pro\ ide additional needed technology for the
2 (Infrequently matched)
Classroom: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site
needs
2 (Infrequently matched)
School: School provides forum for input on technology-budget from teachers, district
and community/business.___________________________________________________
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Teachers are involved as a part of the budget process.
2 (Infrequently matched)
The relationship between plan and implementation in the area o f funding and
budget seemed to waiver among subcategories between infrequently matching and
sometimes matching. The district plan encouraged a concerted effort to seek out funding
through grants and partnerships. Though the researcher saw evidence of partnerships
(with Verizon, California State University Long Beach, Boeing, and others) and grants
(Technology Literacy Challenge and the California Technology Assistance Program),
there was no evidence that the school took the initiative to form these or seek other
partnerships. In past years, the ATM program enjoyed helathy donations to keep the
program at the forefront of educational technology. However, this year that funding has
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
133
dried up. Now magnet program funds from the state support the ATM program. The
researcher anticipates that this funding will not be sufficient to maintain the program in
the years to come. Thus, the expectation was to see active solicitation o f financial
support which was not evident. The following barrier was identified at DeMilo Middle
School in the area o f funding:
> Funding for the ATM program took a “nose-dive” as compared to previous years due
to the inability o f business partners to continue to provide funding.
Funding is always an issue in the implementation of any plan. The Harbor View
Unified School District Technology Plan states, “The funding efforts o f the Technology
Plan are an essential segment and are actively pursued at all levels.” DeMilo Middle
School is one o f those levels and will need to pursue additional funding in order to
achieve full implementation o f the plan.
Area V Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 33 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Monitoring and
Evaluation
l=Never matched, 2=Tnfrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_____________________________ 5=Always matched______________ ______________
I Area V: Monitoring and Evaluation
School: School seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring o f tech plan implementation.
_______________________________ 3 (Sometimes matched) ___________ ____________
Classroom: Teacher seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring o f tech plan
implementation. _______ __________________ ________
2 (Infrequently matched)
I School: School frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
134
Table 33 Technology Plan and Implementation Relationship: Monitoring and
Evaluation (cent.)
l=Never matched, 2=Tnfrequently matched, 3=Sometimes matched, 4=Often matched,
_________ S^Always matched_______________ ______________
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Teacher frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
(Som^imesmatched)
I
School: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are established and
examined periodically.________________________________________________
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are examined
periodically._______________________________________________________
I
3 (Sometimes matchedO
afin anO T
School: School provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous
improvement.__________________________________________________
3 (Sometimes matched)
Classroom: Teacher provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous
improvement._______________________________________________________
3 (Sometimes matched^
The plan and implementation of that plan seemed to match some of the time in the
area of monitoring and evaluation. The following barriers to full implementation at
Demilo Middle School w ere identified:
> There was no clear process defined in the plan nor at the school to evaluate and
monitor the technology program.
> Beyond completion of surveys, teachers felt that they did not have very many
opportunities for feedback that resulted in real change to the program.
This area is crucial in determining how effective the technology program is.
Furthermore, it allows the district to update and improve the plan. Because M l
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
135
implementation depends on a monitoring and evaluation process, both the HVUSD
and DeMilo Middle School will need to enhance their evaluation process.
Summary
The research conducted herein encompassed a number of data sets generated by
interviews, researcher ratings, questionnaires, and surveys. Quantitative data generated
by the survey instruments was compared to qualitative data gathered during the
interviews.
Several general findings emerge from this study. First, the district’s technology
plan design addressed each of the five technology plan components that must be
addressed in order to create a comprehensive technology plan. Specific plan categories
of Curriculum, Professional Development, Infrastructure, Hardware, Technology Support
and Software, Funding and Budget, and Monitoring and Evaluation are clearly articulated
in the plan with respect to specific intentions regarding implementation. In some areas,
however, the plan appears to fall short of its requirements. A key area in which this
occurs is funding and budgeting. Specifically, with regard to the pursuit of grants to
provide additional needed technology for the school, problems emerge at the school and
classroom levels. In some other areas, the plan appears to adequately articulate its goals
and objectives.
The issue of the extent to which the district technology plan has been
implemented at the school site can be summarized by reviewing the data which suggest
that the district technology plan has not been fully implemented or established at the
school site level. The majority o f teachers surveyed (Stages of Concern) were well below
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
136
the Refocusing stage of concern. These data suggest that forther professional
development activities are needed - a finding that is also represented by interview
comments gleaned from discussions with site administrators, technology directors, and
individual classroom teachers.
The third research question focused on the relationship between the design and
the implementation of the district technology plan and the classroom use of technology.
Much of the literature claims that a major gap exists between ambitious plans for
technology integration into classroom instruction and the actual use of technology in such
settings (Hart, 1999; Kinnaman, 1997; McNabb, et al 1999). Often, schools find
themselves in the position of having a technology plan provided by a school district and
also in possession o f a substantial array o f equipment as well as software packages. What
is often missing in this relationship is professional development or the training of
teachers in the use of techno logy as an integral part of curriculum.
Ertmer, et al (1999) have contended that for many teachers, technology in its
many different forms represents a unique challenge to accepted, traditional ways of
delivering instruction. Only through professional development and hands-on interactive
training will teachers acquire the comfort and expertise needed to make effective use of
new technologies in their classrooms. This study suggests that while district and school
technology administrators and/or coordinators may believe that professional development
and training of teachers is proceeding appropriately, teachers themselves are not
convinced that this is the case.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
137
Specifically, the data generated by this study suggest that inadequate attention
to professional development is impeding the full integration of technology into
curriculum. Further, teachers appear to be moving somewhat slowly toward mastery of
technology — largely as a consequence of apparently insufficient professional
development activities. Funding constraints and limited time availability may be at work
in impeding this progression; grant applications, while well addressed in the technology
plan are apparently less well understood and/or addressed as an activity for which
teachers who are responsible at the classroom level.
The issue o f funding was highlighted by the study, which indicated that funding is
regarded by many administrators as a key element in the determination of how well or
poorly a technology plan will be implemented. It is to the state that the respondents to
this study indicated that schools must turn for assistance in obtaining funds for
technology plan implementation.
Similarly, an important priority for such plans is the degree to which school
administrators support the plan implementation. A lack of adequate attention to
professional development and in-service educational training for teachers, a lack of
oversight, and a lack of site-specific evaluation and monitoring are perceived as
negatively impacting upon teachers’ ability to implement a technology plan effectively.
The findings discussed in this study tend to lead to a set of specific conclusions:
1) The technology plan adopted by the school district conforms to the state requirements
in most particulars;
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 3 8
2) Differences between intent and implementation at the district, school site, and
classroom levels can be identified that suggest the plan has not been adopted either in
spirit or in practice as yet;
3) Teachers are clearly in need of additional professional development and training
opportunities if they are to move forward in their own work regarding the use of
technology; and
4) A focus on matching implementation to intent is needed, which may necessitate
additional funding and budgetary allocations for technology development and use.
The research also suggests that moving from the design of a comprehensive
technology plan for a school district to actual implementation of the plan at the
site/school and, later, the classroom level is a challenging process. Three different levels
of actors and agencies are involved in such a process: the district planners who must
assess technology needs for the district and for individual schools, integrate local needs
with state mandates, and ensure that both curriculum and professional development issues
are addressed in the plan, which must be adequately funded and evaluated over time; the
school or site administrators, who are charged with “translating” the district plan to the
needs and uses of the local school and its myriad stakeholders; and the classroom
teachers, who must then adopt technology as an integral part of their day-to-day
instructional and pedagogical strategies. As this study indicates, at each of these levels it
is possible to identify discrepancies and/or differentials between intent and practice.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
139
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to focus on and identify issues that educators face
in integrating technology into schools. The study addressed this subject at the district,
school and classroom levels - the three most critical levels of technology plan
implementation once the state has identified its ow n overarching technology goals and
objectives. Three research questions were addressed:
What is the district’s current technology plan?
To what extent has the district technology plan been implemented?
W hat is the relationship between the district’s technology plan design,
implementation of the plan, and classroom use of technology?
The research moved from an extensive review of relevant literature to the
explication of a comprehensive research design, the data analysis procedure, collection of
data, and on to the analysis of findings. Chapter IV presented answers to the research
questions.
In general, it would appear that as school districts create and then begin to
implement their unique technology plans, some areas become more troubling than others.
Specifically, this study suggested that integrating technology into curriculum may be
among the most troubling and difficult tasks that site administrators and classroom
teachers must confront. A second challenge is the creation of sufficient professional
development opportunities for teachers, opportunities that the literature reveals are
needed to overcome fear o f technology and facilitate adoption.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
140
The study also suggested that a lack of professional development may be at
work in inhibiting movement of teachers from one “Stage of Concern” to another. In this
study, more than 60 percent of all teachers who participated were at or below the mid
point of developing comfort with the new technology. Only 30 percent had achieved the
“Consequence” stage (as measured by a self-report instrument). What this suggests is
that for a majority of the teachers in the target school district and the target school site,
technology continues to represent a challenge that has yet to be mastered.
As discussed in Chapter II, Ertmer, et al (1999) have noted that teachers are often
resistant to new technologies and that this resistance is best overcome by clearly
identifying the responsibilities that they will assume for technology use in the classroom.
The direct and specific linkages between technology and curriculum and the relationship
between technology use and other activities such as assessment, testing, and
administrative tasks must also be clearly identified. To move teachers more effectively
from mere awareness o f new professional requirements and/or technologies to a high
level of comfort in managing as well as using those technologies, professional
development takes on added significance.
The California Department o f Education (2001) has clearly identified a
comprehensive set of goals and objectives related to technology use in the schools. The
school district explored in this study has developed a comprehensive and clearly
articulated technology implementation plan and has communicated this plan to school
administrators. The difficulty arises in translating a broad and comprehensive plan into
action at the school/site level and, more critically, in the context of day-to-day classroom
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
141
activities that are managed by teachers. This study demonstrates the importance of
directly involving teachers in all aspects of the technology plan design and
implementation processes. Cole (1999) has emphasized that in order to implement
educational technology in the schools, teachers themselves must be recognized as the key
source o f human capital that will either ensure the success o f implementation or prevent
implementation from meeting its goals and objectives. Loveless (1996) identified
resistance to technology on the part o f teachers and a lack of adequate training in
technology use as the key barriers to technology implementation success. This study
highlights this assertion.
Conclusions
The essential components of the California Department of Education’s (2000)
technology model plan (Le., curriculum, professional development, infrastructure,
hardware, technical support and software, funding and budget, monitoring and
evaluation) parallel a shift to a technology plan design that supports technology
integration rather than isolated uses of technology. Educators once resistant to new
technology demands are beginning to respond more affirmatively to integrated plans that
specify all aspects of how technology is to be used in the classroom (Mills, 1999). At the
same time, identifying barriers to classroom technology use is equally important
(Moersch, 1995; Newhouse, 2001).
Only by studying the attitudes and reactions of teachers and school administrators
to district technology plans will it be possible to identify problems to implementation or
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
142
barriers to compliance. This study, employing a number o f different data, has
explored this particular issue in depth.
The central findings of the study include the recognition that the target school
district’s technology plan design replicates that of the State o f California to a remarkable
degree. The Researcher Rating Form serves as evidence o f this high degree of
coordination between the district and the state in the use of technology in schools.
At the same time, the research also suggests that there are some critical
differences between the intent of the district technology plan and its actual
implementation at the school or site level. As might be anticipated, interviewees who
hold positions in the field of technology are far more generally positive regarding the
success of techno logy plan implementation than are classroom teachers. This is
documented in the interviews conducted with both groups and in teachers’ responses to
the Stages of Concern and teacher questionnaires.
Differentials between the district plan and the classroom use of technology were
also found to exist at the target school. These differences appear to be centered in such
areas as curriculum, professional development, technology support and software,
monitoring and evaluation and, to a lesser degree, in the area o f funding and budget. In
the area of infrastructure, a greater congruence between the school district, the school,
and the classroom could be identified.
This study was limited in that it employed a qualitative case study design.
Interviews, surveys, and questionnaires were utilized to gather data, presenting a possible
limitation due to the subjectivity o f data interpretation. Though only a single school
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
143
participated in the study and results are not generaiizaHe to the larger population, the
results are nevertheless applicable in that they present a high degree of correspondence
between issues identified in the literature as impeding technology plan implementation,
and perceptions o f teachers regarding this issue.
The study revealed many o f the barriers to the M l integration o f educational
technology plans. The school that was studied herein has clearly not reaped the
“integration” level, thus making it extremely difficult to assess the ultimate effectiveness
o f computer use through student achievement. No conclusions regarding the relationship
o f technology plan development and implementation with student learning outcomes can
be drawn.
What does appear to be confirmed by this study is the overwhelming importance
o f ensuring that when districts begin to implement technology plans, they do so only after
involving appropriate stakeholders in the process. Fullan (2001), as well as Hall and
Hord (2001) claim that inadequate staff development, ineffective or inadequate
implementation strategies, and a lack of understanding o f the change process are among
the most significant change barriers to reform program success. Change, particularly
technological change, requires an incremental and fundamental shift in teaching practices
(Loveless, 1996).
When technology is involved, schools must be responsive to the needs of staff
members for professional development and training. The challenges o f integrating
technology into classroom activities are enormous. Hall and Hord (2001) believe that the
vertical paradigm in which policies flow from the federal level down to the classroom
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
144
must be restructured to achieve horizontal integration. In other words, teachers
should not be recipients of change mandates, but should be participants in determining
what mandates will be adopted.
Technology policy is particularly critical in the contemporary educational
environment The district technology plan analyzed herein contains all o f the state-
mandated elements that are believed to be associated with implementation success. What
is absent, apparently, is a translation of the plan into site/school or classroom practice.
Cole (1999) offered the opinion that poor planning for the integration o f technology into
curriculum is a major drawback found in many school district plans. On paper, this is not
wholly the case in the present study.
Moving from what the school district plan says to what actually occurs in the
classroom, what emerges is the recognition that inadequate staff development and
insufficient opportunities to increase teachers’ participation in technology use has
occurred. To frilly integrate technology into curriculum - an area o f specialization in and
of itself that has occupied a great deal o f space in the literature for many years - it is
necessary to involve teachers in the process. Strudler (1999) identified the importance of
school-based technology coordinators or supervisors in these processes; this study also
supports the assertion that such actors are key to the development and implementation of
a successful technology plan at the school and classroom levels.
The primary goal of this study was to identify the barriers that exist in a single
school to the frill implementation of a school district’s technology plan after first
assessing the efficacy and contents o f the plan itself. The study revealed that having a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
145
comprehensive plan is no guarantee that implementation will be successful, speedy,
or complete. The various barriers to plan implementation that have been identified by the
study can constitute significant obstacles to the successful integration o f a well-thought-
out technology policy into classroom practice.
Implications
The key implication of this study is that achieving successful integration of
technology into the educational classroom requires the direct participation and
enthusiastic, competent, and proactive involvement of classroom teachers. Achieving this
goal then necessitates an emphasis on professional development and training so that any
fears or resistance that teachers may experience regarding technology use are eliminated.
A second important implication is that a failure to link technology use to
curriculum is likely to inhibit meaningful use of technology and the resources expended
to acquire and deploy hardware and software. State goals and objectives regarding
technology’s links to curriculum may set the framework for this process, but it is at the
local or school (and the classroom) levels that the linkage must be made. While most
teachers and administrators (as well as policymakers at the federal and state levels)
recognize the potential benefits o f this linkage, differentials between intent and actual
practice have been revealed as commonplace. Efforts to coordinate technology with
course content necessitates the engagement of teachers in the process; more significantly,
such engagement is likely to be empowering for teachers and to facilitate their adoption
of a proactive attitude toward technology itself.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 4 6
With respect to further research, this study suggests that a more
comprehensive use of the Stages of Concern instrumentation at the district level may be
o f benefit to technology planners and policymakers. The present study focused on a
single set o f teachers in a single school. Expanding the basic research design to include
teachers from a variety of schools within a district would be of great value in identifying
school-level differences in technology plan adoption, attitudes o f teachers, and needs
perceived by teachers and administrators with regard to curriculum planning and
technology integration, professional development, infrastructure needs, monitoring and
evaluation, and fending/budgeting. The literature suggests that there are often very large
differences to be observed with respect to individual schools within a single school
district; such a study would provide insight into these differences and their effects.
Research that directly compares and contrasts the attitudes of teachers and
administrators with respect to SOC would also be o f value. This study indicated that
teachers with technical expertise in a technology-rich program are more likely to be
supportive o f and accepting o f technology initiatives than other teachers. Comparing
different groups of teachers with respect to this and other variables may be helpful in
identifying specific barriers to change that negatively impact upon district and school
technology plan adoption
Mew technologies clearly present new challenges to educators. Only by exploring
these challenges and the perceptions o f teachers and other key actors in the schools will
administrators and policymakers be able to make M l use of emergent technologies and,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ultimately, to use these technologies to improve student learning and achievement
outcomes.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L.S. (1996). K-12 Technology Planning at State. District, and Local
Levels (National Center for Technology Planning). MS: Mississippi State. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-IR-96-07).
Archer, J. (2000). The Link to Higher Scores. In R. Pea (Ed.), The Jossev-Bass
Reader on Technology and Learning (pp. 112-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, E.L. (1999). Technology: How do we know it works? [On-line], The
Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology. Abstract from:
http: www. ed.gov/T echnolgy/T echConf/1999/whitepapers/paper5. html.
Bishop, A (1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Policy Trends and
Issues (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED368324) Available at
http://ericir.svr.edvu/plwebcgi/obtain.pl.
Bromley, H. & Apple, M.W. (Eds.). (1998). Education / Technology / Power:
Educational Computing as a Social Practice. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
California Department of Education. (2001). Education Technology Planning.
Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Chapman, G. (2000). Federal Support for Technology in K-12 Education. In
Ravitch, D. (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Educational Policy (pp. 307-357). Washington
D.C.: The Brookings Institute.
Clark, R E. (1994). Media and Method. Educational Technology. Research and
Development. 42(31 7-10.
Cole, H. (1999). Implementing Instructional Technology in Schools. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 018).
Creswell, I. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
David, J. (1994). Realizing the Promise of Technology: A Policy Perspective. In
Means, B. (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform (pp. 169-190). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
EdSource. (2001). Glossary EdSource [On-Line serial]. Available
www.edsource.org.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
149
Elmore, R. & Fuhrman, S. (Eds.). (1994). The Governance of Curriculum: The
1994 ASCD Yearbook.: Available at
http://www.ased.org/readingroorn/books/elmore94book-htffil.
Elmore, R. (1993). The Role of Local School Districts in Instructional
Improvement. In Fuhrman, S. (Ed.), Designing Coherent Educational Policy (pp. 97-
124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ely, D P. (1999). New Perspectives on the Implementation of Educational
Technology Innovations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 775).
Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., & Ross, E. (1999). Examining Teachers'
Beliefs About the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education. 32(1). 54-73.
Fowler, F. (2000). Converging Forces: Understanding Growth of State Authority
Over Education. In N. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing Local and State
Responsibility for K-12 Education (pp. 123-146). Larchmont: Eye on Education Inc.
Fuhrman, S.EL (1993). The Politics of Coherence. In Fuhrman, S.H. (Ed.),
Designing Coherent Educational Policy (pp. 1-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fuhrman, S.H. (1994). Challenges in Systemic Education Reform. CPRE Policy
Brief. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 562) Available at
http: //ericae. net/scr ips/iexl s. exe/scrlp s/x4.
Fuhrman, S.H. (1994). Politics in systemic Education Reform. CPRE Policy
Brief. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 368) Available at
http: //ericae. net/scrip s/texi s. exe/ scrip s/x4.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform.
London: The Palmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press/Taylor
& Francis.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York:
Teaachers College Press.
Glennan, T.K. & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the Use of Educational
Technologv: Elements of a National Strategy. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Goertz, M.E. (2001). Redefining Government Roles in an Era of Standards-based
Reform. Phi Delta Kappan. 62-66.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
150
Goldman, S., Cole, K., & Syer, C. (1999). The Technology/content Dilemma.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Hall, G., Wallace, R , & Dossett, W. (1973). A Developmental Conceptualization
of the Adoption Process Within Educational Institutions (Report 3006). Austin: The
University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095-126).
Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing Change: Patterns. Principles, and
Potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hart, P. (1999). Transforming Learning Through Technology: Policy Roadmaps
for the Nation's Governors [On-line]. Milken Exchange Family Foundation. Abstract
from: http:/www.mfF.org/publications/publications.taf?page=266.
Haycock, K. (1999). Collaboration, Leadership, and Technology. Teacher
Librarian, 26(5). 32-33.
Hentschke, G. (1997). Beyond Competing Schools Reforms. Education & Urban
Society, 29(4). 474-490.
Hill, P.T. (2000). The Federal Role in Education. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings
Papers on educational Policy (pp. 11-57). Washington D C.: The Brookings Institution.
Hodas, S. (1993). Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools.
Education Policy Analysis Archives. 1(10) Available at http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/.
Honey, M., McMillan-Culp, K., & Carrigg, F. (1999). Perspectives on
Technology and Education Research: Lessons from the Past and Present. Paper presented
at The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology. Available at
http://www.ed.gOv/Technology/T eehConff 1999/wfaitepapers/paperl .htrol.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational
Technology Standards for Students, flonneoting Curriculum and Technology. JEugene,
OR: ISTE.
Jonassen, D.H., Campbell, IP ., & Davidson, M E. (1994). Learning With Media:
Restructuring the Debate. Educational Technology. Research and Development. 42(2).
31-39.
Keeler, C. (1996). Networked Instructional Computers in the Elementary
Classroom and Their Effect on the Learning Environment. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education. 28(31 329-346.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
151
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas. Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York:
Harper Collins.
Kinnaman, D. (1997). Dangerous Assumptions. Technology and Learning. 72.
(From [secondary source info]).
Kleiman* G. M. (2001). Myths and Realities About Technology in K-12 school.
In D. Gordon (Ed.), The Digital Classroom: How Technology is Changing the Wav We
Teach and Learn (2nd ed., pp. 7-17). Cambridge: Harvard Education Letter.
Loveless, T. (1996). Why Aren't Computers Used More In Schools?. Educational
Policy. 10(4). 448-468.
Loveless, T. (2000). Comment by Tom Loveless. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings
Papers on Educational Policy (pp. 343-348). Washington D C.: The Brookings
Institution.
Malen, B. & Muncey, D. (2000). Creating a New Set of Givens? The Impact of
State Activism on School Autonomy. In N. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing
Local and State Responsibility for K-12 Education (pp. 200-244). Larchmont: Eye of
Education.
Marsh, D. & Rountree, M. (1997). Improving Student Performance.. .A Lesson
From Abroad. Thrust for Educational Leadership. 26(4116-20.
Marsh, D. (1996). Making School Reform Work. Thrust for Educational
Leadership. 25(5110-15.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). Enabling Professional Development: What Have We
Learned?. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff Development for Education in the
1990s: New Demands. New Realities. New Perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
McNabb, M.L., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, I, & Hawkes, M. (1999). Technology
Connections for School Improvement. Oak Brook: North Central Regional Educational
Lab.
Mills, S.C. (1999). Integrating Computer Technology in Classrooms: Teacher
Concerns When Implementing an Integrated Learning System. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 432 289).
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation: A Framework for
Measuring Classroom Technology Use. Learning and Leading with Technology. 23(3).
40-42.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
152
Moerscfa, C. (1996). Computer Efficiency: Measuring the Instructional Use of
Technology. Learning and Leading with Technology. 23/24(12). 52-56.
Moerscfa, C. (1999). Assessing Current Technology Use in the Classroom: A Key
to Efficient Staff Development and Technology Planning. Learning and Leading with
Technology. 26(8). 40-49.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Newhouse, P C. (2001). Applying the Concems-Based Adoption Model to
Research on Computers in Classrooms Journal of Research on Technology and Education
[On-Line serial], 33(5). Available http://www.iste.Org/irte/33/5/newhouse.html.
Odden, A.R. (1991). Education Policy and Implementation. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and Technology: Making the
Connection. Washington, D C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Picus, L.O. & Bryan, J.L. (1997). The Economic Impact of Public K-12
Education in the Los Angeles Region. Education & Urban Society. 29(4). 442-453.
Riley, R.W., Holleman, F.S., & Roberts, L.G. (2000). E-Leaming: Putting a
World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children [On-line], The National
Educational Technology Plan. Available at
http: www. ed. gov/T echnology/ELearning/ index.html.
Smith, M. & O'Day, J. (1991). Putting the Pieces Together: Systemic School
Reform. CPRE Policy Brief. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 215)
Available at http://www.ericae.net/scrips/texis.exe/scrips/xr.
Spillane, J.P. (2000). Cognition and Policy Implementation: District Policymakers
and the Reform of Mathematics Education. Cognition and Instruction. 18(2 1 141-179.
Strudler, N.B. (1996). Role of School-Based Technology Coordinators as Change
Agents in Elementary School Programs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education.
28(2), 234-255.
U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
153
U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Service. (2000). The
Integrated Studies of Educational Technology Office of Educational Technology [On-
Line serial]. Available http://www.ed.gov/technology/isethtml.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The Condition of Education. National
Center for Education Statistics [On-Line serial]. Available
http: //www. aces. ed. gov/pro grams/coe/.
United States Department of Education. (2001). press release [On-line]. Abstract
from: http: //www.ed. gov/PressReleases/12-2001/12 182001. htm!.
Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M. & Raack, L.
(2000). Computer-Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses and Expectations.
Oak Brook: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Wilson, T.F. (1995). High Tech High: Cruising on the Internet. NASSP Bulletin.
79(1), 84-89.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
154
APPENDIX I: Policy Forms
1. Technology Plan Conceptual Framework
2. Researcher Rating Form: Technology Policy and Implementation
3. Researcher Rating Form: Levels of Technology Implementation Variabes
4. Researcher Rating Form: Teacher Knowledge of Technology Policy,
Programs and Plans
5. Influence Mapping Form Part A
6. Influence Mapping Form Part B
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 . Classroom
technology
integration
Technology is * . > '
as an integral element of
the academic curriculum
Technology is
included as an integral
tool in district -
approved curricular
materials
School wide curricular
norms include
technology integration
Students use
technology for
information gathering,
organizing and multi-
media publishing
2. Classroom
Level/ frequency
of use
Technology is used
throughout the school
day as a part of daily
classroom routines
District plan calls for
technology use as a
part of the daily
classroom routines.
Administrators include
technology use as a daily
expectation in
observations and
Students and teachers
use technology daily
as a tool in a variety of
contexts.
n
S’
£
3. Links to
standards-based
curriculum
Technology is used to
help students meet
local/state content and
performance standards
District expectations
include technology
use for standards-
based instruction
School administrator
expectations include
technology use for
standards-based
instruction
Teacher develops
goals and a specific
implementation plan
related to content
standards
4. Planning and
goal-setting
Benchmarks and
timelines are
established for
technology use in the
curriculum.
The district plan sets
model timelines and
benchmarks.
School-wide curricular
planning involved
technology planning and
goal-setting.
Teacher develops
timelines and
benchmarks for
classroom tech use.
5. Evaluating
ongoing use and
student progress
Students’ use of
technology as a
curricular tool is
examined (ongoing)
and student outcomes
and progress noted.
District uses student
data to make decisions
about and evaluate
technology use.
School uses student data
to make decisions about
and evaluate technology
use.
Teacher uses student
data to make decisions
about and evaluate
technology use.
Technology P lan Conceptual Framework
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Professional development
1. 1. Teaching and
Learning
productivity
m m s m m m
opment
in using technology
for improving
standards-based
instruction is
provided.
District provides
professional development
using technology for
improving standards-
based instruction.
School provides
professional
development using
technology for
improving standards-
based instruction.
Teacher seeks
professional
development using
technology for
improving standards-
based instruction.
2. Personal/
administrative
productivity
Professional
development for
personal &/or
administrative
proficiency is
provided
District provides
professional development
using technology for
personal &/or
administrative
proficiency
School provides
professional
development using
technology for personal
&/or administrative
proficiency
Teacher seeks
professional
development using
technology for
personal &/or
administrative
proficiency.
3. Funding
Funding for
professional
development is
provided
District provides or seeks
out funding for tech.
professional development
School provides or
seeks out funding for
tech. professional
development
Teacher solicits
funding for personal
professional
development from
external sources.
4. Planning, goal-
setting and
monitoring
Professional
development is
planned, with
explicit goals and
ongoing evaluation
Professional development
is planned by district,
with explicit goals and
ongoing evaluation
Professional
development is planned
by school, with explicit
goals and ongoing
evaluation
Professional
development goals are
planned and
evaluated.
Technology P la n Conceptual Framework continued.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
w
1. Networking
Schools and district office
are fully-networked with
district support and
maintenance.
m M fcitfj
District has set up
guidelines regarding
bandwidth, security,
access to information
Schools are fully
networked for teacher
and student use
Teachers can access
information from
anywhere in the school or
from home.
2. Hardware&
Software
standards
Hardware and software
standards are maintained
in tech plan and updated
annually.
Sets minimum specs
for technology
purchased.
Purchases hardware only
after review by team of
school staff.
Teachers participate in
updating hardware and
software standards
Electronic Learning
Resources are available to
all staff and students via a
network
Makes productivity
tools/courses available
to staff and students
Administrators make
staff aware of electronic
learning resources.
Teachers and students
take advantage of
productivity tools and/or
courses offered
3. Hardware
acquisition
Hardware purchased by
schools provides
sufficiently for
school/classroom needs.
Establishes guidelines
for best practice in
setting up technology
equipment
Uses research based
criteria to place
hardware in proper
locations for optimal
student learning
Teacher can provide
feedback on classroom
hardware needs
4. Software
Schools/classrooms are
provided with
recommendations on
software that is tied to
curricular goals/standards.
Provides library of
resources where
teachers can review
software titles
School supports
software purchases
made by teachers
Teacher abides by
recommendations made
by district office when
purchasing for own class.
5. Technical
support
Technical support is
provided in a timely
fashion and meets the
needs of individual
users.
Provides technical
support in a timely
fashion to all
schools and
classrooms
Provides on-site
support people to
assist teachers with
technical support
Provide technicians
feedback on needed
repairs and ongoing
problems
Technology P la n Conceptual Framework continued.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Budgets:
general and
categorical
Technology funding is
included in site and
district budgets (general
and categorical funds) for
all components of tech
plan (i.e. curriculum,
etc.)
District includes
technology funding in
regular and
categorical budgets
for all components of
tech plan (i.e.
curriculum, etc.)
M i
Regular school site
and categorical
budgets include
technology funding
for all components of
tech plan (i.e.
curriculum, etc.)
Teachers have
awareness of budget
and adequate
resources to
successfully
implement technology
in the classroom
g
9
m
§
a
t t
s
m
2 .
Partnerships with
community and business
groups are utilized to
provide additional
District seeks
partnerships with local
business groups for
technology resources
School seeks
partnerships with local
business groups for
technology resources
Teachers invite local
partners to participate
in student learning
resources
3. Grants
Grants are pursued to
provide additional
needed technology for
the school.
District has position
for and supports grant
writing and seeking
additional funding.
School personnel
work to author grants
and seek funding for
their site needs
School personnel
work to author grants
and seek funding for
their site needs
4. Budget Process
All stakeholders are
involved in the decision
making of technology
spending.
District is open to
input from school,
teacher and
community when
making important
budget-related
decisions.
School provides
forum for input on
technology-budget
from teachers, district
and
community/business.
Teachers are involved
as a part of the budget
process.
U t
00
Technology P la n Conceptual Framework continued.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Technology plan
implementation and use
is frequently monitored
using such
organizations as CTAP
or others at little or no
cost to district.
hN M H HM I
5 . Monitoring a n d Evaluation
1. Monitoring
District seeks
assistance with
ongoing monitoring
of tech plan
implementation
School seeks
assistance with
ongoing monitoring
of tech plan
implementation
Teacher seeks
assistance with
ongoing monitoring of
tech plan
implementation
2. Needs and goals
School/district
determines (on an
ongoing basis) the
extent to which needs
and goals have been
met in relation to
technology.
District frequently
examines current
needs and progress
towards goals
School frequently
examines current
needs and progress
towards goals
Teacher frequently
examines current
needs and progress
towards goals
3. Learner
outcomes
The effect of
technology on learner
outcomes is evaluated
on an ongoing basis
using a consistent
criteria districtwide.
Benchmarks for
learner outcomes
using technology are
established and
examined
periodically
Benchmarks for
learner outcomes
using technology are
established and
examined
periodically
Benchmarks for
learner outcomes
using technology are
examined periodically
4. Feedback
District/school
provides ongoing
feedback to
constituents for
continuous
improvement.
District provides
ongoing feedback to
constituents for
continuous
improvement.
School provides
ongoing feedback to
constituents for
continuous
improvement.
Teacher provides
ongoing feedback to
constituents for
continuous
improvement
Technology P la n Conceptual Framework continued.
160
Researcher Rating Form: Technology Policy and Implementation Study
Rate each component on a five-point scale as to the extent to which the element is
observed as intended (technology policy) and as implemented:
1. Never
2. Infrequently
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
4
Area I: Curriculum
& & *3* ffc- m m
District: Technology is included as an integral tool in district-approved curricular
materials.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating. As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
| School: Schoolwide curricular norms include technology integration
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3
I
4 5
Classroom: Students use technology for information gathering, organizing and
multimedia publishing
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2
- J
3 4 5
■ D
District: District technology plan calls for technolo
classroom routine
gy use as a part o f the daily
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
School. Administrators include technology use as a daily expectation in observations
and evaluations
Rating: As intended | 1 2 3 4 I 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
161
(tech plan)
Rating: As implemented
i 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Student and teachers use technology daily as a tool in a variety of contexts
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
i 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
i 2 3 4 5
B B S
*5. ^
B H w m
District: District expectations include technology use for standards-based instruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: School administrator expectations include technology use for standards-based
instruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teac hers devel
technology use for for stanc
op goals anc
ards-based i
a specific implementation plan related to
nstruction
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
fL 1st 2£* 2 k M s* vSXS 46„ ke ^sS t jr~t
District: The district sets model timelines and bene imarks
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
School: School-wide curricular planning involves technology planning and goals-
setting
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teachers develop timelines and benchmarks for classroom technology use
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
District: District uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology use |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
School: School uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher uses student data to make decisions about and evaluate technology
use
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1
!
2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
i
1 |
i
2 3 4 5
Learning prodpctiy
M&sis-based instru
Area II: Professional Development
M
District: District provides professional development using technology for improving
standards-based instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School; School provides professional development using technology for improving
standards-based instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom; Teacher seeks professional development using technology for improving
standards-based instruction.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District; District provides professional development using technology for personal &/or
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
163
administrative proficiency.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
School; School provides professional development using technology for personal &/or
administrative proficiency
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher seeks professional c
&/or administrative proficiency.
evelopment using technology for personal
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3
L -
4 5
District: District provides or seeks out funding for tech. professional development.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School; School provides or seeks out funding for tech. professional development.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher solicits funding for personal professional development from
external sources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
1
District: Professional development is planned by district, with explicit goals and
ongoing evaluation.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
School: Professional development is planned by school, with explicit goals and ongoing
evaluation.
Rating: As intended | 1 2 3 j 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
164
(tech plan)
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Professional development goals are planned and eva uated.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1 2 3 4 5
1L Kgf &P -«J“» fgfi *$1 « n If*- v -
District: District has set up guidelines regarding bandwidth, security, access to
information.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
| School: Schools are fully networked for teacher and student use.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3
1
4 5
Classroom: Teachers can access information from anywhere in the school or from
home.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4
1
5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3
J * ML *
4
♦ f * H
n 9
District: Sets minimum specs for technology purchased. Makes productivity
tools/courses available to staff and students.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 ! 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1
i
2 3 4 5
j School: Purchases hardware only after review by team of school
1 make staff aware of electronic learning resources.
i staff. Administrators
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
165
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teachers participate in maintaining and annually updating hardware and
software standards. Teachers and students take advantage of productivity tools and/or
courses offered.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
m . i? * m * * * i » 4
< r I
District: Establishes guidelines for best practice in settingup technology equipment.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: Uses research based criteria to place hardware in proper locations for optimal
student learning.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher can provide feedback on classroom hardware needs.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
1
District: Provides library of resources where teachers can review software titles.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
i 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented i 2 3 4 5
School: School supports sojiware purchases made' >y teachers.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
i
2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
166
Classroom: Teacher abides by recommendations made by district office when
purchasing for own class.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District: Provides technical support in a timely fashion to all schools and classrooms.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: Provides on-site support people to assist teachers with technical supiport.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Provide technicians feedback on needed repairs anc ongoing problems.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
_______ Area IV: Funding and Budget______
r*r&'?r J ^rr:r?:;£r cvr-ijr^.' T^a^.Trn E.&xr'j * t .
District: District includes technology funding in regular and categorical budgets for all
components of tech plan (i.e. curriculum, etc.) __________ __________________
Rating: As intended (tech
plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: Regular school site and categorical budgets include technology funding for all
components of tech plan (i.e. curriculum, etc.)
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teachers have awareness of budget and adequate resources to successfully
implement technology in the classroom.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
167
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2
3
4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District; District seeks partnerships with local business groups for technology
resources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: School seeks partnerships with local business groups for technology resources.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teachers invite local partners to participate in student learning.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
District: District has position for and supports grant writing and seeking additional
funding.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1
2 3
1
4 5
Rating: As implemented 1
____ . .. .. . ...
2 3 4 5
School: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site needs. |
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: School personnel work to author grants and seek funding for their site
needs.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
District: District is open to input from school, teacher and community when making
important budget-related decisions.
Rating: As intended i 2 3 4 I 5 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
(tech plan)
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: School provides forum for input on technology-budget from teachers, district
and community/business.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teachers are involved as a part of the budget process.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Area V: Monitoring and Evaluation
District: District seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring of tech plan
implementation.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: School seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring of tech plan implementation.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher seeks assistance with ongoing monitoring o:
implementation.
"tech plan
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District: District frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 6 9
Rating: As implemented I 1 2 3 4 5
School: School frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1
2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher frequently examines current needs and progress towards goals.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are established and
examined periodically.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using tec
examined periodically.
mology are established and
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented
1
2 3 4 5
Classroom: Benchmarks for learner outcomes using technology are examined
periodically.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1
2 3 4 5
Rating. As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
I
District: District provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous
improvement.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
School: School provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous improvement.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
170
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
Classroom: Teacher provides ongoing feedback to constituents for continuous
improvement.
Rating: As intended
(tech plan)
1 2 3 4 5
Rating: As implemented 1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
v m tm a K m is s m i
bM W wB
lIR fH B H R
■ H M i
No plan exists A general A fairly detailed A detailed plan A detailed plan
for how to use technology plan exists has exist that contains exists that
or implement plan exists but some of the most of the contains all
technology. it is not elements of the elements of the elements of the
Implementatio focused on California State California State California State
n efforts are learning but technology plan. technology plan technology plan
Plan for chaotic and instead on Some vague requirements. requirements.
Technology haphazard hardware and elements of Focus on Focus on
Use wiring student learning curriculum and curriculum and
elements. are mentioned. learning. Some learning. Specific
Loose timelines specific goals, goals, time tables
exist. time tables and and evaluative
evaluative mechanisms
mechanisms exist exist.
Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented are Implemented are
are frustrated have heard think that happy to have excited about
with something instructional technology in the instructional
technology; about technology can classroom and are technology and
they do not education help students in gentle advocates its possibilities
feel prepared technology but some aspects, and for its use. There for improving
Implementer
to use it well really haven't is willing to try is still some student learning.
Disposition
in the districts' tried it yet. the reform if it hesitation about The implementers
classrooms. They are not does not take any its ability to are willing to
Computers are asking for extra effort. improve learning spend significant
just a fad. education
time on its use.
technology.
Researcher Rating Form: Levels o f Technology Implementation Variables
Researcher Name:
Level (Circle One: Teacher, School, District, State & Federal)
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p S S N S B P p p f
m m a m
M N B
w s m m
Motivation
Implementers
participate in
technology reform
only because that
are forced by
mandate or feel that
they cannot pass up
the incentives
offered by external
forces.
Implementers can
be persuaded by
incentives to
participate in
technology but are
unlikely to follow
through with
program demands.
The focus will be
on appeasement of
formal
Implementers are self
motivated because of
their belief in
technology as a reform.
With or without
incentives, persuasion,
or resources, these
implementers would
move forward with
technology
implementation as
Sources of
Information
Implementers have
no knowledge
outside of the
confines of day-to-
day technology use
within their own
milieu.
Implementers have
some idea where to
get the information
that they need, but
is not very familiar
with what
information is
available and from
whom.
Implementers are well
informed from various
sources and understand
how technology works
and how to use it in the
classroom. They know
where to get detailed
information if
confronted with an
issue.
Leadership Role
Implementers on
this level have no
vision for
technology use and
fail to promote it to
colleagues.
Implementers have
created a few
projects in their
classroom but have
not told others or
refined their
curriculum.
Implementers are
advocates, have a clear
vision of technology
use, and create and
relate success stories.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 H N H
f t —
Interaction with
Other Levels
Implementers at
each level are not
familiar with the
goals or resources
at the other level.
There is no
coordination
between levels.
Implementers
are familiar with
levels closest to
them but make
no special effort
to coordinate.
Implementers
have knowledge
of the levels
closest to them
and coordinate
occasionally, impl
ementers
Implementers
are very
familiar with
the levels
above and
below them
and coordinate
them when
possible.
Implementers
understand the levels
of the organization
above and below
them. They are able to
coordinate goals and
resources in a
comprehensive,
synergistic
way. quickly as
possible.
Plan Policy
Goals Being Met
No evaluation of
goals is made.
Resources are
used without
accountability.
Some evaluation
is made but
implementation
plans are not
modified to
reflect findings.
Ongoing evaluative
efforts lead to flexible
shifts in plan
implementations to
meet overall policy
goals
Overall Effect
and Influence
from this Level
Other
implementers
ignore directives
from this level and
utilize its
resources for their
own programs and
goals
Other
implementers use
resources from
this level. They
use some policy
direction from if
it is convenient.
Other levels take
direction, information,
and use the resources
provided by this level
appropriately.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
h H B H I
Federal Policy,
Programs, and Plans
Knows of many
Federal Policy,
Programs and Plans,
understands how they
apply to the district
and school technology
Has heard of some
Federal Policy,
Programs and Plans,
understands how
they apply to the
school
Has heard of
Federal Policy,
Programs and
Plans, thinks they
might be benefiting
from them.
Has heard o f some
Federal Policy and
Programs but is not
sure.
Does not know
Federal Policy,
Programs and
Plans
State Policy and
Programs
Knows o f many State
Policies, Programs,
and Plans, understands
how they apply to the
district and school
technology plans
Has heard of some
State Policies,
Programs, and
Plans, understands
how' they apply to
the school
Has heard of State
Policy, Programs
and Plans, thinks
they might be
benefiting from
them
Has heard of some
State Policy and
Programs but is not
sure.
Does not know
State Policy,
Programs and
Plans
District Policy,
Programs, and Plans
Knows o f many
District Policies,
Programs, and Plans,
understands how they
apply to the district,
school, teachers, and
Has heard of
District Policies,
Programs, and
Plans, understands
how they apply to
the district, school,
Has heard of
District Policy,
Programs, and
Plans, thinks they
might be benefiting
from them
Has heard of some
District Policy,
Programs and Plans
but is not sure
Does not know
District Policy,
Programs and
Plans
School Policy,
Programs, and Plans
Knows of many
School Policies,
Programs, and Plans,
understands how they
apply to the district,
school, teachers and
students
Has heard of School
Policies, Programs,
and Plans,
understands how
they apply to the
district, school,
teachers and
Has heard of
School Policy,
Programs, and
Plans, thinks they
might be benefiting
from them
Has heard of some
School Policy,
Programs and Plans
but is not sure
Does not know
School Policy,
Programs, and
Plans
Classroom Use
Uses tech. in the
classroom according
to Policy, Programs,
and Plans, relying on
the information to
formulate lesson plans
and curriculum
Uses technology in
the classroom using
some of the Policy,
Programs, and Plans
that are useful to the
teacher
Uses technology in
tire classroom and
complies with
Policy, Programs
and Plans when
necessary
Uses technology in
the classroom but
ignores Policy,
Programs and Plans
from all levels
Uses technology
but defies Policy,
Programs and
Plans from all
levels
Researcher Rating Form: Teacher Knowledge o f Technology Policy,
Programs, a n d Plans__________________
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part A: Policy, Funding and Implementation Worksheet Name:_______________________
Teachers, School Site Administrators, District Administrators Position:______________________
In the chart below, underline the position that best describes you. Next, circle the people or resources that give you most useful
information to effectively implement technology in your classroom(s) or school(s) and draw an arrow from the circled
people/resource to your underlined position. Then, draw an arrow(s) to the circled people indicating from whom you think they
get their information, even if you're not quite sure. Finally, draw arrow(s) from your underlined position to those for whom you
act as a resource.
• Governor's
• Superintendent
Office • The President
• Assistant
• Universities
Superintendent
« Legislature • The Secretary
• ProfessionaO • Principal • State
of Education
• Director of
rganizations
• Vice Principal
Technology
Department • Department
• Teacher
• Journals of Education
• Site Technician
of Education
• Student • Director of
• Magazines • Regional
• Consultant Experts
Instructional
• Regional
Laboratories
• Colleague
Services
Organizations ® News
(CTAP) • Internet • Consultant
Other
• Consultant
Experts • County
Experts Conferences
Office
Other
Other
Other
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Influence Mapping Form Part B
Part B: Funding, Policy and Implementation
Technology plans include the hardware, software and training necessary to create the effective use of technology in the
classroom. In the chart below, the top row indicates a list of sources from which funding, policy, and implementation of
technology plans comes. Below is the definition of ''funding", "policy", and "implementation"
Funding any monies used for hardware, software, training, or personnel relating to technology
Policy technology goals including goal requirements
Implementation actions or programs used or created to reach technology policy goals
Please rate the sources from 1 to 5 in order of importance (1 is the highest) as to which has the most influence in creating
effective use of technology in the classroom.
■■■
Funding
Polocy
Implementation
APPENDIX II: Implementation Forms
1. Interview Guide - District Leader
2. Interview Guide - Site Administrator
3. Interview Guide - 1 eacher
4. District Technology Plan Stages of Concern Teacher Questionnaire
5. Questionnaire - District Leader, Site Administrator, and Teacher
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
District Leader Interview Guide
178
1. When was your technology plan created and what process did you go through to
create it?
• Who was the author?
• How long did it take to create?
• What was the process of developing the plan?
• What was the goal o f the process
• How detailed did you get?
• How did you accommodate the fast changing nature of technology?
• What is the role of the Technology Plan in the context of:
o Learning and instruction
o Student performance
o Standards based curriculum
o Professional development
o Funding and budget
o District goals/vision
2. Who participated in the development of the technology plan (stakeholders)?
• How were the stakeholders chosen to participate in the plan?
• Do you feel like those that created the policy were knowledgeable, represented all
stakeholders, took their assignment seriously, were free to create the policy they
felt was the most beneficial, felt their plan was realistic and would be carried out
at all levels?
• Were there differences of opinion?
• How wide was the range of opinion?
• Was the plan approved by the board, community groups, the county, the state?
• Was a needs assessment completed during the development of the plan?
• Did the stakeholders list the underlying philosophies or research about technology
use in schools and classrooms?
• How did consensus occur?
3. What was the impetus for creating the technology plan?
• Were forces inside the district such as the board, the superintendent, or another
person or group the initiator o f the plan?
• What was their motivation for creating a plan?
• What outside forces such as the state or community groups motivated the creation
of a technology plan?
• Why were these forces influential?
• Did those groups or entities outline any specific requirements?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
179
• How did those creating the plan react to outside requirements?
• Would the plan have been made if not for outside forces?
• If these forces did not exist, would your organization use technology as it is
today? Would your plan be any different?
• How does the state policy affect the plan?
• Does state/federal policy enhance or restrict what your district wants to do?
• Did outside forces have any conflicting requirements that you were forced to
resolve (for example labs versus classroom computers)?
4. What were the financial requirements of the plan?
• Who funded the development of the plan?
• Who funded the implementation of the plan?
• Would your plan have been different if you had more funds?
• Were these funds one time or ongoing monies?
• Were individual school budgets affected by the decisions made by the
developers of the plan?
• Did the sites have a say in that?
• Who controls the budgeting and funding of the plan?
5. Does your district have an implementation timetable?
• What is the timetable?
• Does the timetable still follow the original plan?
• Who monitors the ongoing implementation of the plan?
• Describe the evaluation component of the plan?
• What measures are used to evaluate success or failure?
• Are hardware, software, and training treated equitably in the implementation
timeline?
• How often is the plan revisited? Formally? Informally?
• Are the original creators of the plan involved in implementation?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the district office?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the sites?
• To whom was the district plan disseminated?
• How was it disseminated?
• If you wanted information about how implementation of the plan was proceeding,
who would you ask at the district and the sites?
• Are the responsibilities for implementation of the district plan different at the
district than they are at the sites?
6. How well is the implementation o f the technology plan proceeding at the district?
• Are most district office employees familiar with the technology plan?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
180
• Is the implementation of the technology plan divided among divisions or
departments?
• Can the implementation of the technology plan be impeded if one of these
divisions or departments does not respond to what is required of them?
• Is the plan proceeding as scheduled?
• How important is the technology plan to what really happens in the district office
regarding technology?
• How is technology maintained at the district level?
• What changes in the organizational structures have occurred because of the
implementation of the plan?
• How many people are employed at the district office because of the requirements
of the technology plan?
• Are these employees funded through continuing or non-continuing funds?
• What have been the impediments of implementation of the district technology
plan at the district level?
• Did implementation of the plan create any unanticipated needs?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district technology plan at the district
level?
7. How well is the implementation of the district technology plan proceeding at the
sites? Acceptance and Knowledge, Coordination of Curriculum, Maintenance
• Are most site employees familiar with the district technology plan?
® If site employees are unaware of the district technology plan will it hinder its
implementation?
• Are the main goals of your technology plan being met at the sites?
• Does the school have its own technology plan?
• How does the school site plan articulate with the district plan?
• Are there conflicts between the two plans?
• If there are conflicts, who resolves them?
• Who is in charge of technology formally at the school sites?
• Who is in charge of technology informally at the school sites?
• Who are the technology advocates of the school?
• Who are the instructional and technical technology leaders at the site?
• How much flexibility does the site have within the district technology plan?
• Can the site choose the training its teachers receive?
• Can the site choose the hardware and software it buys?
• Do the sites receive funds through the structure of the district technology plan that
they are able to spend as they please?
• If not, who determines how they spend this money, the district, the state, the
federal government, or some other entity?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
181
• Does the school site receive any technology fends that are not associated with
the district technology plan and its goals?
• How is the technology maintained at the site level?
• Is there a coordinated effort at the school site to implement the district technology
plan?
• Is the district technology plan producing results at the site?
• What have been the impediments of implementation of the district technology
plan at the district level?
• Did implementation of the plan create any unanticipated needs?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district technology plan at the school
site level?
8. What is happening with technology in the classrooms, computer laboratories, and
libraries at the school site?
® Are teachers familiar with the district technology plan?
• Are teachers familiar with the school technology plan?
• Do teachers have technology in their classrooms?
• Is technology in the classroom because of fending facilitated by the district
technology plan?
• Would the technology be available in classrooms if the district technology plan
did not exist?
• Are teachers being trained? How are they being trained?
• Are teachers using what they learn in their professional development?
« How are teachers being evaluated on proficient use of technology? How?
® Are students using computers in classrooms and laboratories for instructional
purposes?
• Are students allowed to use the computers that teachers use?
• Is teacher use of technology occurring because of the district technology plan or
in spite of it?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district technology plan at the school
site level?
9. If you could change anything in the district technology plan right now, what would it
be?
• Would you give someone more authority?
• Would you ask for more money?
• Would you ask for more personnel?
• Would you ask for more software?
• Would you eliminate anything in the plan?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
182
• What would be different now without the technology plan?
10. In your opinion, have all of the expenditures, planning, implementation, and effort
spent on technology been justified by the results that we see in the classroom?
• If not, why not?
• If so, why?
• Do you think your answer will change as technology advances?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
School Site Administrator Interview Guide
183
1. What do you know about the district technology plan and how does the plan affect
what happens with technology at your school site?
• Was someone from your school involved in its creation?
• Do you feel your school needs are being met by the plan?
• Who in your district office do you think was involved in the plan?
• From your perspective what are the plans strong points?
• From your perspective what do you think the plan is missing?
• Does the district technology plan truly help or influence the use of technology in
your classrooms?
• Do you think that it is important that the district have a technology plan?
• What is the role of the Technology Plan in the context of:
o Learning and instruction
o Student performance
o Standards based curriculum
o Professional development
o Funding and budget
o District goals/vision
[USE QUESTIONS 2- 6 ONLY IF THE ADMINSTRATQR HAS DIRECT
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN]
2. Who participated in the development of the technology plan (stakeholders)?
• How were the stakeholders chosen to participate in the plan?
• Do you feel like those that created the policy were knowledgeable, represented all
stakeholders, took their assignment seriously, were free to create the policy they
felt was the most beneficial, felt their plan was realistic and would be carried out
at all levels?
• Were there differences of opinion?
• How wide was the range of opinion?
• Was the plan approved by the board, community groups, the county, the state?
• Was a needs assessment completed during the development of the plan?
• Did the stakeholders list the underlying philosophies or research about technology
use in schools and classrooms?
• How did consensus occur?
3. What was the impetus for creating the technology plan?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
184
• Were forces inside the district such as the board, the superintendent, or
another person or group the initiator of the plan?
• What was their motivation for creating a plan?
• What outside forces such as the state or community groups motivated the creation
of a technology plan?
• Why were these forces influential?
• Did those groups or entities outline any specific requirements?
• How did those creating the plan react to outside requirements?
• Would the plan have been made if not for outside forces?
• If these forces did not exist, would your organization use technology as it is
today? Would your plan be any different?
« How does the state policy affect the plan?
• Does state/federal policy enhance or restrict what your district wants to do?
• Did outside forces have any conflicting requirements that you were forced to
resolve (for example labs versus classroom computers)?
4. What were the financial requirements of the plan?
• Who funded the development of the plan?
• Who funded the implementation of the plan?
• Would your plan have been different if you had more funds?
• Were these funds one time or ongoing monies?
• Were individual school budgets affected by the decisions made by the developers
of the plan?
® Did the sites have a say in that?
• Who controls the budgeting and funding of the plan?
5. Does your district have an implementation timetable?
• What is the timetable?
• Does the timetable still follow the original plan?
• Who monitors the ongoing implementation of the plan?
• Describe the evaluation component of the plan?
® What measures are used to evaluate success or failure?
• Are hardware, software, and training treated equitably in the implementation
timeline?
• How often is the plan revisited? Formally? Informally?
• Are the original creators of the plan involved in implementation?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the district office?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the sites?
• To whom was the district plan disseminated?
• How was it disseminated?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
185
• If you wanted information about how implementation of the plan was
proceeding, who would you ask at the district and the sites?
• Are the responsibilities for implementation of the district plan different at the
district than they are at the sites?
6. How well is the implementation of the technology plan proceeding at the district?
• Are most district level employees familiar with the technology plan?
• Is the implementation of the technology plan divided among divisions or
departments?
• Can the implementation of the technology plan be impeded if one of these
divisions or departments does not respond to what is required of them?
• Is the plan proceeding as scheduled?
• How important is the technology plan to what really happens in the district office
regarding technology?
• How is technology maintained at the district level?
• What changes in the organizational structures have occurred because of the
implementation of the plan?
• How many people are employed at the district office because of the requirements
of the technology plan?
• Are these employees funded through continuing or non-continuing funds?
• What have been the impediments of implementation of the district technology
plan at the district level?
• Did implementation of the plan create any unanticipated needs?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district technology plan at the district
level?
7. How well is the implementation of the district technology plan proceeding at your
school?
• Are most school site employees familiar with the district technology plan?
• How did you find out about the District technology plan?
• If school site employees are unaware of the district technology plan will it hinder
its implementation?
• Are the main goals of your district technology plan being met at your school?
• For what reason do you think the district technology plan exists?
• Do you get the impression that the district takes its technology plan seriously?
• With whom from the district do you most frequently interact regarding
technology?
• Does the district use its technology plan to dictate how to implement technology
at the school site?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
186
• How does the district monitor and evaluate the District technology plan?
8. Does your school have a school site technology plan?
• Who was involved in making the school site technology plan?
• What was the basis for the plan elements? Research? Amount of money? Current
amount o f hardware?
• Do most school site employees know about your school technology plan?
• Do you think that the district is aware of the school site technology plan?
• How does the school site plan articulate with the district plan?
• Are there conflicts between the two plans?
• If there are conflicts, who resolves them?
• Is what really happens at the site with technology influenced more by the site plan
or the district plan?
• Does the state or federal government require certain elements to be included in
your technology plan?
• Does the state or federal government have any influence in your school site plan?
• What have been the impediments of implementation of the school technology
plan at your site?
• Did implementation of either the school or district technology plan create any
unanticipated needs?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district or school technology plan at
your school site?
9. How is technology distributed at your school?
• Who is in charge of technology formally at the school sites?
• Who is in charge of technology informally at the school sites?
• Who are the technology-advocates of the school?
• Who are the instructional and technical technology leaders at the site?
• How much flexibility does the site have within the district technology plan?
• Can your school choose the training its teachers receive?
• Can your school choose the hardware and software it buys?
• Can teachers choose the hardware and software they buy?
• Can teachers choose what training they want to receive?
• Does your school receive technology funds through the district technology plan
that you are able to spend as you please?
• If not, who determines how you spend this money, the district, the state, the
federal government, or some other entity?
• Does your school receive any technology funds that are not associated with the
district technology plan and its goals?
• How is the technology maintained at the site level?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
187
• Is there a coordinated effort at the school site to implement the school or
district technology plan?
10. How is technology being used in the classrooms, computer laboratories, and
libraries at the school site?
• Do most teachers have technology in their classrooms?
• How is it determined who gets the greatest amount o f technological equipment?
• Is technology in the classroom because of district or school funding?
• Are teachers being trained? How are they being trained?
• Are teachers using what they learn in their professional development?
• Are teachers being evaluated on proficient use of technology? How?
• Are students using computers in classrooms and laboratories for instructional
purposes?
• Are students allowed to use the computers that teachers use?
• Is teacher use o f technology occurring because of the district or school technology
plan or in spite o f it?
• Can you give me any examples o f incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation o f the district or school technology plan?
• If there were no district or school technology plan would there be more or less
computer use in the classroom?
• What is the motivation for teachers to use technology in their classrooms?
• Are most teachers in the school using technology?
11. How do your teachers use technology in your classrooms?
• What types of technology do your teachers use in the classroom?
• How have the teachers learned how to use technology? Did they receive training
or did they learn it on their own?
• Do your teachers use computers for administrative, instructional, or personal use?
• Are the students allowed to use the computers in all or your classrooms?
• What are the rules regarding the use o f the computers in your classrooms?
• What type of discipline issues have you had to confront with computer use in the
classroom?
• How often do your teachers use computers?
• How often does the typical student in your school use computers?
• What factors determine whether or not it is worthwhile to use the computer on a
specific assignment?
• In the last month, how many assignments do you think that the average teacher
has had students do that require the use o f the computer?
• Can you think o f any particular assignment that a teacher has used using
technology?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
188
• Are technology assignments derived from lesson plans that teachers had
before they had computers or did they create new lesson plans once the computers
were available?
• Do you think that the computer has changed the way that your teachers teach?
How?
• Considering your current school situation, if the district gave you $15,000 to
spend on your classrooms or students in any way you wanted, what would you
purchase?
• In your opinion, do you feel like technology improves student learning?
• Do you believe it helps students learn faster or more?
• Does technology offer students more resources?
• In a "bottom-line" type o f statement, tell me how you really think technology has
influenced your classrooms.
• If you were to consider your colleagues opinions, how many o f them do you feel
would have the same opinion?
• What percentage of your teachers do you consider "technology using teachers"?
12. If you could change anything in the district or school technology plan right now,
what would it be?
• Would you give someone more authority?
• Would you ask for more money?
• Would you ask for more personnel?
• Would you ask for more software?
• Would you eliminate anything in the plan?
• What would be different now without the technology plan?
13. In your opinion, have all o f the expenditures, planning, implementation, and effort
spent on technology been justified by the results that we see in the classroom?
• If not, why not?
• If so, why?
• Do you think your answer will change as technology advances?
14. Do you know of any state or national technology policies, programs, or plans that
help you at the school site to implement technology effectively in your
classrooms?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
189
Teacher Interview Guide
1. What do you know about the district technology plan and how does the plan affect
what happens with technology at your school site?
• Was someone from your school involved in its creation?
• Do you feel your school needs are being met by the plan?
• Who in your district office do you think was involved in the plan?
• From your perspective what are the plans strong points?
• From your perspective what do you think the plan is missing?
• Does the district technology plan truly help or influence the use of technology in
your classrooms?
• Do you think that it is important that the district have a technology plan?
• What is the role o f the Technology Plan in the context of:
o Learning and instruction
o Student performance
o Standards based curriculum
o Professional development
o Funding and budget
o District goals/vision
[USE QUESTIONS 2- 6 ONLY IF THE INTERVIEWEE HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE
OF THE DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN]
2. Who participated in the development o f the technology plan (stakeholders)?
• How were the stakeholders chosen to participate in the plan?
• Do you feel like those that created the policy were knowledgeable, represented all
stakeholders, took their assignment seriously, were free to create the policy they
felt was the most beneficial, felt their plan was realistic and would be carried out
at all levels?
• Were there differences o f opinion?
• How wide was the range of opinion?
• Was the plan approved by the board, community groups, the county, the state?
• Was a needs assessment completed during the development o f the plan?
• Did the stakeholders list the underlying philosophies or research about technology
use in schools and classrooms?
• How did consensus occur?
3. What was the impetus for creating the technology plan?
• Were forces inside the district such as the board, the superintendent, or another
person or group the initiator o f the plan?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
190
• What was their motivation for creating a plan?
• What outside forces such as the state or community groups motivated the creation
of a technology plan?
• Why were these forces influential?
• Did those groups or entities outline any specific requirements?
• How did those creating the plan react to outside requirements?
• Would the plan have been made if not for outside forces?
• If these forces did not exist, would your organization use technology as it is
today? Would your plan be any different?
• How does the state policy affect the plan?
• Does state/federal policy enhance or restrict what your district wants to do?
• Did outside forces have any conflicting requirements that you were forced to
resolve (for example labs versus classroom computers)?
4. What were the financial requirements of the plan?
• Who funded the development of the plan?
• Who funded the implementation o f the plan?
• Would your plan have been different if you had more funds?
• Were these funds one time or ongoing monies?
• Were individual school budgets affected by the decisions made by the developers
o f the plan?
• Did the sites have a say in that?
® Who controls the budgeting and funding o f the plan?
5. Does your district have an implementation timetable?
® What is the timetable?
• Does the timetable still follow the original plan?
• Who monitors the ongoing implementation of the plan?
• Describe the evaluation component of the plan?
• What measures are used to evaluate success or failure?
• Are hardware, software, and training treated equitably in the implementation
timeline?
• How often is the plan revisited? Formally? Informally?
• Are the original creators o f the plan involved in implementation?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the district office?
• Who is responsible for implementation at the sites?
• To whom was the district plan disseminated?
• How was it disseminated?
• If you wanted information about how implementation o f the plan was proceeding,
who would you ask at the district and the sites?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
191
• Are the responsibilities for implementation of the district plan different at the
district than they are at the sites?
6. How well is the implementation o f the technology plan proceeding at the district?
• Are most district level employees familiar with the technology plan?
• Is the implementation o f the technology plan divided among divisions or
departments?
• Can the implementation o f the technology plan be impeded if one of these
divisions or departments does not respond to what is required of them?
• Is the plan proceeding as scheduled?
• How important is the technology plan to what really happens in the district office
regarding technology?
• How is technology maintained at the district level?
• What changes in the organizational structures have occurred because o f the
implementation of the plan?
• How many people are employed at the district office because o f the requirements
of the technology plan?
• Are these employees funded through continuing or non-continuing funds?
• What have been the impediments of implementation o f the district technology
plan at the district level?
• Did implementation of the plan create any unanticipated needs?
® Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad o f implementation of the district technology plan at the district
level?
7. How well is the implementation o f the district technology plan proceeding at your
school?
• Are most school site employees familiar with the district technology plan?
• If school site employees are unaware of the district technology plan will it hinder
its implementation?
® Are the main goals of your district technology plan being met at your school?
8. Does your school have a school site technology plan?
• Who was involved in making the school site technology plan?
• What was the basis for the plan elements? Research? Amount o f money? Current
amount o f hardware?
• Do most school site employees know about your school technology plan?
• Do you think that the district is aware o f the school site technology plan?
• How does the school site plan articulate with the district plan?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
192
• Are there conflicts between the two plans?
• If there are conflicts, who resolves them?
• Is what really happens at the site with technology influenced more by the site plan
or the district plan?
• Does the state or federal government require certain elements to be included in
your technology plan?
• Does the state or federal government have any influence in your school site plan?
• What have been the impediments of implementation of the school technology
plan at your site?
• Did implementation of either the school or district technology plan create any
unanticipated needs?
• Can you give me any examples o f incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation o f the district or school technology plan at
your school site?
9. How is technology distributed at your school?
• Who is in charge of technology formally at the school sites?
® Who is in charge o f technology informally at the school sites?
® Who are the technology-advocates of the school?
• Who are the instructional and technical technology leaders at the site?
• How much flexibility does the site have within the district technology plan?
• Can your school choose the training its teachers receive?
• Can your school choose the hardware and software it buys?
• Can teachers choose the hardware and software they buy?
• Can teachers choose what training they want to receive?
• Does your school receive technology funds through the district technology plan
that you are able to spend as you please?
• If not, who determines how you spend this money, the district, the state, the
federal government, or some other entity?
« Does your school receive any technology funds that are not associated with the
district technology plan and its goals?
• How is the technology maintained at the site level?
• Is there a coordinated effort at the school site to implement the school or district
technology plan?
10. How is technology being used in the classrooms, computer laboratories, and
libraries at the school site?
• Do most teachers have technology in their classrooms?
• How is it determined who gets the greatest amount of technological equipment?
® Is technology in the classroom because o f district or school funding?
• Are teachers being trained? How are they being trained?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
193
• Are teachers using what they learn in their professional development?
• Are teachers being evaluated on proficient use of technology? How?
• Are students using computers in classrooms and laboratories for instructional
purposes?
• Are students allowed to use the computers that teachers use?
• Is teacher use o f technology occurring because of the district or school technology
plan or in spite o f it?
• Can you give me any examples of incidences or occurrences that highlight both
the good or bad of implementation of the district or school technology plan?
• If there were no district or school technology plan would there be more or less
computer use in the classroom?
• What is the motivation for teachers to use technology in their classrooms?
• Are most teachers in the school using technology?
11. How do you use technology in your classroom?
• What types o f technology do you use in the classroom?
• How have you learned how to use technology in the classroom? Did you receive
training or did you leam it on your own?
• Do you use your computer for administrative, instructional, or personal use?
• Are the students allowed to use the computers in your classroom?
• What are the rules regarding the use o f the computers in your classroom?
• What type of discipline issues have you had to confront with computer use in the
classroom?
• How often do you use the computers?
• What factors determine whether or not it is worthwhile to use the computer on a
specific assignment?
• In the last month, how many assignments have you had students do that require
the use o f the computer?
• Do you have any specific assignments that you can share with me? Are there any
handouts or examples o f student work?
• Are these assignments derived from lesson plans that you had before you had
computers or did you create new lesson plans once the computers were available?
• Do you think that the computer has changed the way that you teach?
• Considering your current classroom, if the district or school gave you $5,000 to
spend on your classroom or students in any way you wanted, what would you
purchase?
• In your opinion, do you feel like technology improves student learning?
• Do you believe it helps students learn faster or more?
• Does technology offer students more resources?
• In a "bottom-line ” type o f statement, tell me how you really think technology has
influenced your classroom.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
194
• If you were to consider your colleagues, how many o f them do you feel would
have the same opinion?
• If you were to rate yourself as a "technology using teacher" within your school,
where would you fall, in the top 10% or the top 50%?
12. If you could change anything in the district or school technology plan right now,
what would it be?
• Would you give someone more authority?
• Would you ask for more money?
• Would you ask for more personnel?
• Would you ask for more software?
• Would you eliminate anything in the plan?
« What would be different now without the technology plan?
13. In your opinion, have all of the expenditures, planning, implementation, and effort
spent on technology been justified by the results that we see in the classroom?
• If not, why not?
• If so, why?
• Do you think your answer will change as technology advances?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
195
District Technology Plan - Stages of Concern Teacher Questionnaire
Name (optional):__________________ __
This is a questionnaire about the district’s technology plan. The purpose of this
questionnaire is to determine what teachers who are using or thinking about the district's
technology plan are concerned about at various times during the innovation process. A
good part of the items on this questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or
irrelevant to you at this time. For the completely irrelevant items, please circle "0" on the
scale. Other items will represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of
intensity, and should be marked higher on the scale.
Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel
about your involvement or potential involvement with the district's technology plan.
We do not hold to any one definition of this innovation, so please think of it in terms of
your perception o f what it involves. Remember to respond to each item in terms of your
present concerns about your involvement or potential involvement with the district's
technology plan.
Please circle the number that best reflects your response to each statement based
on the following rating scale:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrelevant Not true for me Somewhat true for me Very true for me now
1. I am concerned about students' attitudes toward the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I now know o f some other approaches that might work better than the district's
technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I don't even know what the district's technology plan is.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
196
4. I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day
because of the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I would like to help other faculty in their use of the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I have a very limited knowledge about the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I would like to know how the implementation of the district’s technology plan
would affect my classroom, my position at my school, and my professional status.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and responsibilities with
respect to the implementation of district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I am concerned about revising my use of the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside
faculty while implementing the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I am concerned about how the district's technology plan affects students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
197
12. I am not concerned about the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I would like to know who will make the decisions in the district's technology
plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. I would like to discuss the possibility of using the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. I would like to know what resources are available to assist us in implementing the
district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. I am concerned about my inability to manage all that is required by the district's
technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. I would like to know how my teaching or administration is supposed to change
with the implementation of the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. I would like to familiarize other departments or people with the progress of this
new approach to use the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students in relation to the
district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
20. I would like to revise the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
198
21. I am completely occupied with other things besides the district’s technology
plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. I would like to modify our use of the district's technology plan based on the
experiences of my students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Although I don't know about the district’s technology plan, I am concerned
about aspects of the district's design.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. I would like to excite my students about their part in the district's technology
plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems related to
the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. I would like to know what the use of the district's technology plan will require
in the immediate future.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
199
27. I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the effects of the
district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. I would like to have more information on the time and energy commitments
required by the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. I would like to know what other faculty are doing in the area of implementing the
district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. At this time, I am not interested in learning about the district's technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31. I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the district's
technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. I would like to use feedback from students to change the district's technology
plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. I would like to know how my role will change when I am using district's
technology plan.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
200
34. Coordination of tasks and people in relation to the district’s technology plan
is taking too much of my time.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. I would like to know how the district's technology plan is better than what we
have now.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. I am concerned about how the district’s technology plan affects students.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
201
Teacher Questionnaire-Technology Study
Please fill out the following questioniare and returning it as the cover letter indicates.
This survey is anonymous and will not be shared on an individual basis with district or
school administrators. Please be as candid as possible. We appreciate your time.
Technology in the Classroom
1. Teachers in my school are enthusiastic
about technology and its use in the
classroom.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Teachers in my school use technology
in their classrooms daily.
3. Technology has lived up to its
“promise” in the school setting.
4. Teachers who use technology
frequently in their classrooms learned
to use it through their own
experimentation or pior knowledge.
5. Teachers who use technology
frequently in their classrooms learned
to use it through professional
development opportunities offered by
the district or school.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Teachers who use technology well
have learned how to use it because the
school technology plan was executed
well.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Technology use in my classroom has
positively affected student learning.
8. Technology use in my school has
positively affected student learning.
9. Teachers have the opportunity to
participate and provide input to the
school technology plan.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10. Teachers should determine how
technology programs are implemented
and how technology funds arer used in
classrooms.
202
1 2 3 4 5
11. If a family member were attending the
school where I teach, I would be
satisfied with the level of technology
use at the school.
1 2 3 4 5
Technology in the School
12. Leaders at my school provide a clear
vision of how to use technology in the
classroom.
13. My school technology plan has had a
direct impact in my classroom.
14. School site administrators should
determine how technology programs
are implemented and how technology
funds are used in classrooms.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
15. School site administrators are
enthusiatic about technology and its
use in the classroom.
16. School site administrators spend too
much time implementing technology
programs.
17.1 feel like I have the surpport of the
school when I request technology
assistance or want to experiment with
technology in my classroom.
18. The school has provided sufficient
funds for technology purchases and
staff development.
Technology and the District
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
19. District Leaders provide a clear vision
of how to use technology in the
classroom.
20. Administrators in my district are
enthusiastic about technology and its
use in the classroom.
2 1 .1 feel like I have district surpport
when I request technology assistance
or want to experiment with technology
in my school or classroom.
22. Teachers have the opportunity to
participate and provide input into the
district technology plan.
23. District administors should determine
how technology programs are
implemented and how technology
funds are used in the classroom.
24. The District has provided sufficient
funds to schools for technology
purchases and staff development.
Technology and the State and Nation
25. State and National technology policy
and programs have a direct impact on
my school.
26. State and National educational
experts should determine how
technology programs are implemented
and how funds are used in the
classrooms.
27. States have provoded sufficient funds
to schools for technology purchases
and staff development.
12 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
28. The National government has provided
sufficient funds to schools for
technology purchases and staff
development.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
APPENDIX III - Consent Forms
1. Teacher Cover Letter
2. Informed Consent For Non-Medica! Research
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
206
Teacher Survey Cover Letter
January 8, 2002
Dear Teacher,
I am a doctoral student at USC working on my dissertation for which I, along with seven
of my colleagues in the program, are investigating district technology plans and their effect(s) on
schools, classrooms, and teaching. The results of this study will help districts to plan for and use
technology more effectively.
I have enclosed two different types of surveys; each should take less than 4 minutes to
complete. The first survey is a series of statements about your school's use of technology and the
school and district technology plans. It uses a scale of 1 to 5. Please circle:
Number________________________ Response
1 if you Strongly Agree
2 if you Somewhat Agree
3 if you are Neutral or Don't Know
4 if you Somewhat Disagree
5 if you Strongly Disagree
The second survey measures your level o f concern toward a certain innovation, in this
case the district technology plan. This is a standard survey instrument. Even though some of the
questions don't seem to fit, please answer to the best of your ability because each has relevance.
Because I have been in the classroom, I realize how precious your time is. I want to
personally thank you for your help in this study. Your completion and return of this survey will
demonstrate your consent to participate. I assure you that these surveys are anonymous. The
results will not be shared on an individual basis with anyone. I hope that I can count on you to
provide me with this valuable assistance towards my personal and professional goals. When you
have completed the surveys, please return them in the provided envelope and return to your
principal.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Alane Calhoun
(310) 632-1246
ALCalhoun@aol.com
Please take a moment to respond to the following confidential questions which will be
used for only for demographic purposes in the narrative of my dissertation.
What type(s) of teaching credentials) do you hold?____________________________
How many (total) years have you been a teacher?____________________________ _
How many years have you been in your current position at Fairview?______________
Which grade level(s) do you teach? _
Which courses do you teach? _______________ ___________________
What is your gender? Male Female _ _ _
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research
207
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
School District Technology Plan Implementation
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Lawrence O. Picus, Ph. D.
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The
results of this study will be used for a dissertation regarding technology plan
implementation in schools. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are an employee in your school district. A total of 60 subjects will be
selected from your district to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
□ PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine how school district technology plans are formed
and how their implementation affects classroom use of technology.
□ PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we ask you to do the following things:
• Complete questionnaires administered by researcher (knowledge of technology
plan, stages of concern, influence mapping);
• Participate in interview with researcher. This interview will last approximately
one hour. Selected subjects will be participating in the interview.
□ POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to participation in this study. Any discomforts you may
experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering these questions.
□ POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits to subjects participating in this study will be the information
discovered by the researcher. The subjects will then have the opportunity to use this
information to improve the implementation of technology in schools.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
208
The potential benefits to society are that results will lead to better practice of the
implementation of technology in schools, which, in turn will benefit students at those
schools.
□ PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no payment for participation in this study.
□ CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audio-tape recordings of
you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised by
the researcher. All audio-tapes used in the collection of data during this study are for
educational purposes and will be destroyed after completion of the dissertation. As a
participant, you have the right to review and/or edit the tapes in the presence of the
researcher.
Guidelines:
• Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored, and
secured by the researcher as to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
• If the researcher contemplates any other uses of the data of this study, your
consent will be solicited.
® Individual responses to survey questionnaires will be destroyed following analysis
of the data and completion of the dissertation.
□ PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
□ IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Alane Calhoun at (310) 632-1246
□ RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
209
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room 300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019,
(213) 740-6709 or uplrb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered
to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of
this form.
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
INVESTIGATOR SIGNATURE
I have explained the research to the subject and have answered all of his/her
questions. I believe that he/she understands the information described in this document
and freely consents to participate.
Alane Calhoun (Print)
Signature Date
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level

PDF

K--12 technology policy and practice: Relationships between a California school district's technology plan and middle school technology implementation

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

How classroom teachers react to and implement California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment educational reform policy

PDF

A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

PDF

A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

PDF

Cost -effectiveness analysis of two multiple-subject (crosscultural, language, and academic development) internship credential programs in California

PDF

Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

PDF

A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?

PDF

An analysis of the use of data to increase student achievement in public schools

PDF

An analysis of the impact a district design on the use of data has on student performance

PDF

Graduate student enrollment management: Toward a model that predicts student enrollment. A case study at Phillips Graduate Institute

PDF

Data: Policies, strategies, and utilizations in public schools

PDF

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of data utilization in schools: A case study

PDF

How districts and schools utilize data to improve the delivery of instruction and student performance: A case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Calhoun, Alane L. (author)

Core Title Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,education, technology of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-658955

Unique identifier UC11340229

Identifier 3117239.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-658955 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3117239.pdf

Dmrecord 658955

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Calhoun, Alane L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA