An Evaluation of a School Technology Plan, Dissertation Example

Abstract

An Evaluation of a School Technology Plan for Staff Development. Billingsley, Edna Richardson, 2010: Applied Dissertation Proposal, Nova Southeastern University, Fischler School of Education and Human Services. Technology Education/Technology Integration/Technology Uses in Education/Educational Change

To meet the challenge of addressing the technological needs of students enrolled in the nation’s 21st century classroomsand the goal of raising the level of technology awareness and utilization, it is imperative that educators develop methods of utilizing technology so their pupils can compete in the growing technological society of the day.  The study utilized the evaluation methodology approach for this study. The site of the study was in the Southern part of the United States. The participants included 35 full-time instructional faculty and staff members, and 1 technology coordinator serving kindergarten through Grade 5 at a rural elementary school

The research questions that guided the study were:(1) What were the perceptions of the faculty and staff toward technology professional development programs within this district? (2)What were the reactions of faculty members in the targeted school to participating in the technology professional development programs? (3)To what extent were teachers integrating technology into their lessons? (This question was answered by teacher observation.)(4) Did more frequent and regular participation in regularly scheduled training and professional development result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of teachers? (5) What was the perceived and reported deficiencies educators’ report that hinders educators in their technological proficiency?

The major findings included: 1) the faculty and staff  recognized the importance of technology integration to student learning; (2) that they had access to most high-tech tools;  the time allotted for the faculty and staff’ professional development in technology utilization opportunities was directly related to their technological proficiency. Recommendations based on the data collected during this study may be found in Chapter 5.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Technology has taken over every aspect of the world. It is broadly a set of tools designed to make life easier for everyone as well as more efficient. We embrace this technology and to the point of information overload, have learned to love communication and transacting in the fast paced world of technology today. Educational technology, especially computers and computer-related peripherals, have increased their growth exponentially (Valdez, 2005). It is aimed in facilitating growth and learning as well as improving performance. According to More (2001), “we are on the cusp of a breakout in technological acceleration, a discontinuity in human history” (p. 4).

Cope and Kalantzis (2000) stated that education, as a business must respond to labor markets, economic interests, and shifting societal trends shaped by globalization and migration. Though there are skepticisms on the part of technology being integrated in school systems, students also need to familiarize themselves with technology to remain globally competitive, as well as to keep up with the changing environment. There is no better place to start than a learning institute.

This study investigated the attitudes toward and use of technology for instructional purposes. Technology incorporated in the educational system has it criticisms, mainly because it gives students too much instant gratification. Technology makes things easier for an individual, and no longer do students have to labor over school work, because with today’s technology, everything can be found on the internet, a few clicks away. The criticism towards this is that it will make students lazy.  For many reasons that is not the only attitude towards using technology for instructional purposes. It can give easy-access to course materials; it gives student motivation and will encourage students to be more involved, also making learning easier is not always negative. The site school was a rural elementary school in a southern state. This elementary school was established when two schools in the same community were merged together in 1999. According to the elementary school demographics provided to Advanced Ed (previously known as Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or SACS), there are 30 full-time instructional staff members, and 4 part-time faculty members, 1 administrator, 1 part-time counselor, 1 secretary, and 1 office aide at the elementary school. There are 372 students enrolled at the school. The ethnicity breakdown of the student population is 52 % African American, 42 % Native American, 3 % Caucasian, 2 % Asian, and 1 % Hispanic. The researcher has been at the elementary school in various capacities that include, but not limited to, special education teacher, Title I resource teacher, technology coordinator, assistant principal, and principal. She has 32 years experience in education.

Unlike schools in other rural settings, this elementary school had access to advanced technology acquired to help provide the highest quality educational services. Resources included computers equipped with digital video discs read-only memory; compact discs read-only memory; rewritable compact discs; digital cameras; and inkjet, laser jet, and desk jet printers. The staff had access to liquid crystal display projectors and video conferencing equipment. Each teacher was provided with at least six computers for the classroom and at least four of those had Internet access. The school purchased licensed copies of Accelerated Math, Accelerated Reader, STAR Early Literacy, STAR Math, STAR Reading, Perfect Copy, Accelerated Writer, and Accel Test. The school also purchased a school management program from Software Technology Inc.

Nature of the Problem

The problem addressed in this study was that the technology professional development module used in this county hadnever been evaluated to see if it had had a positive impact on this school. The program in place at the time of the study was implemented in 2005.  At that time the administrator in the school and the superintendent of the county believed that introducing technology into the learning environment would enhance the quality of education. They also decided the technology would benefit students, faculty, and staff, and, by extension, the entire community, through the creation of a highly qualified workforce for the digital age. The professional development model was designed to give teachers the tools they needed to facilitate the use of technology with their students.

Efforts to determine how well teachers have integrated technology had not been implemented. Although assessments in intervention practices had been undertaken, an evaluation of the effectiveness of these practices had not been conducted.

Observing the fast pace of technological growth, particularly in fields of science and technology, school administrators considered it vital for the school to adopt new methods of teaching in order to respond to the changing social, economic, and global environment (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4). This belief was consistent with research studies identifying the need for all organizations to keep their employees (staff and faculty), customers (students and families), and other constituents (school board and members of the community) completely informed of and involved in increasingly dynamic environments and to provide world-class service to these groups by proper training, access, and accountability (Rothwell, 2000).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if the professional development training provided to teachers had been effective in providing the tools they needed to integrate technology into their instructional practices. It looked at the attitudes of the teachers toward technology and how they integrated technology into the instruction within their classrooms. Through the investigation into the effectiveness of the training, the implementation and ongoing practice of the technology skills acquired during training, and the identification of what teachers identify as needs in this area, it was anticipated that the results and recommendations related to the data would enable the district to insure it’s professional development training in this area is effective. Data on what is being utilized by the teachers, and what is not, should also assist the district and school to maximize the monies spent on technology related purchases in the future.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined for clarity in this study.

Educational or instructional technology is a combination of the processes and tools involved in addressing educational needs and problems with an emphasis on applying the most current tools: computers and their related technologies (Robyler, 2003).

Formative evaluation is an evaluation used to modify the products or processes, programs, and activities based on feedback obtained during the development and planning stage.

Needs assessment, according to Stansbury and Zimmerman (2002), is a meaningful diagnosis of organizational or individual views surrounding issue stop determine solutions, solve problems, or undertake change.

Professional development, according to Stiles & Orsmond (2002) involves individual and group processes designed to systematically examine and change practices.

Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program is the evaluation instrument used for educators in the state.

Summative evaluation is an evaluation that determines the effectiveness of the product. The summative evaluation is usually conducted at the conclusion of an activity.

Technological usage is the application of using information technology in education and the workplace (Robyler, 2003).

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

The review of the literature conducted for this evaluative study queried factors that facilitated or deterred the implementation of educational technology in classroom instruction. The predominant focus examined instructional technology integration in terms of varied change models. The mission of instructional technology is mostly to give students a technology integrated environment where learning is promoted through the encouragement of technological skills. This should be made possible when staff readily integrate technology in to their curriculum and instruction.

Technology progression affected and changed civilization and culture for the entire universe. In accumulation, the minority of individuals would dispute the consciousness that technology has eased individuals’ workloads and the resource is critical to achievement in any organization. Experts anticipate that by Year 2010, all occupations will involve the use of computers on a daily basis (Robyler, 2003). Even though not all occupations to date involve computer based technology, it does not mean that technology is not moving at a lightning speed. This fast-paced technology is ideally designed to ease the workload of people, and for organizations and individuals to be more productive, by making tasks simpler and a click-of-the-button-away.

Federal and state programs, in addition to matching grant organizations, have invested thousands of dollars to equip the site school with the necessary resources to prepare both students and educators for the digital age. This is because technology integrated learning environments are supposed to enhance the learning experience in many ways and it is recognized by the federal and state educational systems.

Despite these resources, it was reported in a National Study of School Evaluation (2006) survey that, on average, only 5% of faculty were comfortable with technology. These numbers indicated a discontinuity between the acquisition and use of new classroom technology. Most organizations trained their staff on the use of new technology. However, many times, this training was ineffective (Trucano, 2005).

These ineffective results are consistent with the situation in the targeted elementary school, according to interviews withthe county coordinator of technology services, the local school technology coordinator, and cadre. Although best efforts had been made to provide equipment and to train educators, there was a general consensus in the technology cadre that the current system did not have an effectiveness measure.

The development of citizens who are prepared to be active and engaged in their communities, both local and global, and the development of individuals who have a strong sense of their personal identity are significant goals in education (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Technology would make these goals easier as well as faster to reach. With the ease of communication through the internet, people globally are more connected and can interact, transact and communicate much easier, no matter where they are in the globe.

Organizations that are aware of the developments of technology and how it is coming about in a fast-paced manner will be terrified by the whole idea of the accelerated growth in this aspect, fearing that they will not be able to keep up with the times; however, they are more likely to succeed than those who remain blind to the subject and have not accepted that technology will be continuing its rapid development (More, 2001).

Because school administrators and the Local Education Agency know the actual value of the changes and accompanying professional development that they introduce, they must ensure that an effective, efficient evaluation program is in place Tenbusch (2002) reported that preparing technology-proficient educators to meet the requirements for teaching students in the 21st century is a critical challenge to the nation’s academic institutions.

Any school’s long-term survival depends on the achievement of mission goals, one of which is to encourage learning that is relevant and authentic through the use of technology (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). A school that fails to meet its goals risks being placed on academic deficiency lists, and losing its funding and other reprisals. It is, therefore, important for school administrators to ensure that staff and faculty are well equipped and well trained to perform their tasks and contribute to the educational goals of the organization (Laird, Holton, & Naquin, 2000). Computers (Archer, 2000; Kulik, 2002; Waxman, Connell, & Gray, 2002) can raise student achievement and even improve a school’s climate. According to Jacobsen (2002), classroom teachers are at forehand to student success with technology usage. It is of urgency that teachers are knowledgeable of technology and are provided with ongoing professional development. Students come and students go and these teachers are responsible for educating all generations of students (Fulton, 2003).

What is most critical for the integration of technology into a classroom environment for the purposes of better educating students and equipping them with needed insights for their academic and professional careers is a fundamental redefinition of the role and mindset of the teacher. The teacher or instructor should be readily equipped with the right knowledge and teaching equipment to prepare them for integrating technology in to the classroom. If a teacher or instructor is not open to the idea of technology being used in the classroom to better the learning environment, progression in this area may become stagnant. Each teacher has a personal and unique teaching style, and, in integrating technologies into a classroom, their needs to be room enough in the delivery of technologies to allow for these core strengths of teachers to come through (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4). Teachers need to be able to prepare themselves adequately for the new teaching styles and methods for technology to be properly accepted in the classroom. Clearly technology for technology’s sake is not the answer but, taking a process-centric view to ways that technologies could be used to strengthen a teacher’s teaching style, was needed (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4). There may be resistance towards teacher’s attitudes with schools using technology for instruction, and it is not only in age or generational divide. Most teachers would have to re-learn some teaching methods to be able to keep up themselves with technology, and it would require them to adjust to some styles in giving instruction. For those who are more comfortable with the less new-aged approach in teaching, this would create a difficult transaction.

Technological development does not necessarily work for all faculties because they do not understand how to use the technology. Without a vision of what technology can do for teachers by making their job easier, faculty cited time constraints and the lack of training as the reasons they resisted technology. Ironically, the availability of high-quality training can interfere with an effective technology usage program because simply having more and better technology does not guarantee the best technology program. What does make such a program is the ability to provide intensive training for the teachers (Brooks, 2000).

Education for the 21st century will bring with it a multitude of new problems, new innovation, new debates, new political advocates, and new scientific and pedagogical developments. One very important issue is sure to be that of curriculum innovation in learning and technology with respect to teacher attitudes. However, before there can exist any intelligent discussion with regard to this issue, one must first garner an understanding as to what constitutes being a teacher in the 21st century as well as the importance of cultural diversity and cultural responsive teaching. Only then can one truly appreciate the coming innovative learning and technology advancement and its impact of and upon teacher attitudes (Dyche, 2002).

To assume the professional role of being a competent and culturally responsive teacher in computer-assisted learning, the individual must have a well-defined technology teaching commitment. That commitment is best described in terms of the following principles that encourage responsive teaching in terms of being a technological renaissance educator (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002). The first principle is the teacher is the learning facilitator and guide. Second, student-centered hands-on cyber learning exceed rote instruction. Third, instruction is culturally mediated. Fourth, reshaping the curriculum with technology is essential to include all new pedagogical developments. Fifth, diverse communication technological systems must be augmented and mastered. And, finally, positive attitudes toward change, technology, and learning must be present all times and encouraged.

The scope of the intended study was significantly grounded in principle that dealt with Principle 6 (attitude toward change and technology in the learning environment as well as making use of new technology for teaching purposes). Most of the teachers used computers exclusively for record keeping and not for teaching. According to Solmon and Wiederhorn (2000), the typical teacher skill level in technology in the classroom in the state is 0.9%. The percent of teacher skill level is rated at 4% or 5% on a scale, in which 1% is beginner and 5% is advanced (Solomon & Wiederhorn). The teachers in this state rank below average in using technology in the classroom.

Educators must take a decisive step in permeating technology into the schools. As a classroom tool, the computer has captured the attention of the education community (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). This versatile instrument can store, manipulate, and retrieve information, and has the capability of engaging students in instructional activities to increase their learning and of helping them solve complex problems to enhance their cognitive skills (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Russell, 2005). The use of technology in the classroom provides students with higher achievement scores and a more competitive venue in the ever-changing global arena. The intent of this study was to increase the faculty’s and staff’s usage of technology in a manner that in turn would maximize student use and, consequently, lead to higher student achievement.

Various studies conducted by administrators in this elementary school revealed that the staff was not well trained to use these tools. Most of the faculty and staff simply were not computer literate. This situation concerned the administration because, without a certain degree of familiarity with these tools, teachers were not able to provide the same level of services as provided by the teaching staff of better-equipped schools. With the rise in demand and implementation comes an increase in the need to evaluate the effectiveness of technology in education (Owston, 2001).

As education proceeds into the 21st century, new challenges and problems are coming to the scene that will affect both the student and the teacher. With new forms of technology rapidly being developed, there exists the possibility that new information delivery systems will supersede the capability of the teacher to deliver timely and relevant information to students; there is also danger of students being unable to integrate all that has been immediately conveyed by technological delivery systems. In an attempt to understand the magnitude of this issue, there was a significant need to research the effective use of technology in the classroom as to its worth from the perspective of both teacher and student.

Countless educators have exalted the benefits of new technology in helping teachers teach and students learn. For the teacher, technological advances have increased the amount of available learning resource support, empowered the teacher to facilitate learning at a higher rate of speed, and assisted the teacher in organizing and developing of learning materials. With advances in technology, the teacher has been placed in a milieu that now fosters innovation, creativity, and spontaneity. For the student, the benefits are immense as well.

Teaching mechanisms that are digital by design and used for teaching or learning are only as good as the person who uses them. Machines should never replace the human element that must accompany problem-solving experiences or the presentation of new information. The technological geniuses of the digital world have yet to confer on a computer a human soul. Therefore, in order to garner an appreciation for the use of technology or computers in public education, this paper presented a format for the research investigation. Information collected and evaluated helped to provide future guidelines and recommendations for computer use in elementary school curriculum integration.

What needed to change first in the educational curriculum were the processes that teachers used, and then technology could be selectively applied to get these processes to the highest level of performance possible, often called best practices (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). Change management is the area of organizational theory that looks for best practices in how individuals can change their procedures, processes, and techniques to be more efficient and aligned with broader school and learning institution-wide objectives. Changing faculty’s perception of technology first begins by showing its benefits in the context of processes they need to complete for their jobs (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). If the administrative staff of a school does not support or encourage technology usage, then teachers may feel that they are on their own and will not pursue the use of technology (Edyburn & Gardner, 2000). Researchers (Byers, Pugh, Sheldon, & Zhao, 2002; Edyburn & Gardner) wrote that teachers who do not have a great deal of experience with computers are reluctant to use them if they feel they are not supported by the administration or county.

Evaluation of any educational training program is essential (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). In the last 25 years, training professional development programs have undergone various types of evaluation. Program evaluators dealt with problems that ranged from lack of agreement on the purposes of evaluating to the disagreement on appropriate performance measurement models (Guskey, 1986). Students can, by the click of a mouse, venture into a world of information previously inaccessible. They can, by the way of computer and Internet, search for new information, learn to solve problems more efficiently, and become involved in a more collaborative learning situation (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002).

Classroom technology, however, does not provide the facilitator, the human voice of encouragement, or the conveyor of the emotion that should accompany learning (O’Dwyer, Russell, Bebell, & Tucker-Seely, 2004).

Technology development for the faculty and staff predicted students’ abilities to meet goals and objectives for both faculty and students. According to Cross, Davenport, and Cantrell (2003), teachers need 3 to 5 years of training and experience in order to progress from the learning technology to integrating and applying it in the classroom. This may be of concern to some teachers who have no background at all in the new ways of technology, although this should not be any means to bring a negative attitude towards the development. Institutes would also have to change their criteria in hiring, and may have to do a lot of adjusting in their faculty. Most schools do not respect this time line.

New technologies allow teachers more flexibility and encourage more analytical thinking on the part of the staff and students (Kosakowski, 2000). Teachers, not only students can benefit from technology integrated in the classroom. Through the diverse interactive features the internet offers, teachers can easily monitor their students work in a virtual learning environment (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002). A review of the 2000 Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools indicated an improved interaction between educators and students (Felix, 2000). There would no longer be a technological or generational gap between students and teachers with technology based medium of instruction. The student will more likely respond in a positive way when given a task which is to be done via computer, rather than a task he/she would have to manually research and write (Fallows, & Bhanot, 2002).

According to Trochim (2002), evaluation is a methodological area that provides systematic acquisition and evaluation of information to provide useful feedback to a variety of audiences, including sponsors, donors, administrators, and other relevant counterparts. Additionally, according to Trochim (2002), there is broad consensus that the major goal of evaluation research should be to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the position of empirically driven feedback.  The primary focus of this evaluation study used the DICE change theory, looking at the challenge of technology usage in schools, including project duration, the teaching project team’s performance integrity, completing tasks, senior administration commitment, local level or teacher commitment, and effort as it related to professional development.

The following sections provide an overview of the change management approaches that schools need to be considered before introducing or changing technology use. Using one or a combination of these change management techniques consistently leads to higher levels of technological adoption than if technological change (Jones, Aguirre, & Calderone, 2004).

A framework for planning and initiating change management programs that apply to both business and educational institutions was presented by Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson (2005). Their models’ acronym was DICE which stood forDuration Integrity Commitment Effort and was used for defining the five factors that go into the successful implementation of a change management program: project duration, the teaching project team’s performance integrity, management commitment, teacher commitment, and employee effort.

This model has been constructed through research completed by Sirkin et al. (2005). In defining their DICE model, Sirkin et al. contended that the soft factors of change management, including culture, leadership, and motivation, have been overplayed in many strategies that companies have used in the past. Model DICE is the framework for capturing the hard factors of change management, or those that can be more easily quantified and measured. This is in exact alignment with the challenges as defined in the introduction of this proposal.

Sirkin et al. (2005) began using this methodology of measuring change management in 1992 and were strengthened by research completed in 2005 and ensuing years at Boston Consulting Group. Sirkin et al. illustrated the methodology of applying quantitative measures to each element of the DICE framework then chart the correlations of completed products to each teaching projects’ respective DICE score. In calculating DICE scores, Sirkin et al. suggested quantifying the duration of the learning project, including milestones, integrity of performance in the context of time spent in completing tasks, senior management commitment, local level or teacher commitment, and effort. The equation that emerges is as follows: DICE Score = D + (2Xi) + (2XC1) + c2 + e.

While Sirkin et al. (2005) admitted that the process of quantifying the performance of these factors can lean towards the subjective; their argument for greater accuracy and precision tends to lean towards project management of the learning process over the statistical precision their equations suggest. Sirkin et al. ended their discussion with a return to the common best practices in change management many other experts in the field espouse, which includes teacher- and administrator-level commitment and verbalizing of change being needed and personal ownership being critical.

Another approach that has become pervasively relied on for bringing change into teaching and educational institutions is business process (Hammer, 2003). This is a critical first step for many educators to take. They must redefine teaching processes first, looking for greater effectiveness in reaching students, and working with them. Cross et al. (2003) prescribed a five-step approach to the Business Process Reengineering model. This model can be equally applied to the managing of a teaching project, semester, or year. Hammer (2003) in one of many books on this topic, including The Agenda, illustrated through examples and intensive analysis of how educational institutions and companies alike can improve their performance through examining their many processes and redefining them for greater competitive performance.

The initial step of Cross et al.’s (2003) model was to develop the teaching vision and process objectives first: The BPR method was driven by a teaching vision which implied specific learning objectives, including the development of an entire series of new online skills, online studying and test taking, and the use of the Internet as collaboration medium. It was imperative that teachers stress these skills for their students and also follow through with teaching strategies based on processes they know will work with every range of class they encounter during their teaching careers.

The next step, according to Cross et al. (2003), was to identify the teaching processes to be redesigned. Many schools and higher education learning institutions take a high-impact approach to redefining the most critical processes first. These are the processes that conflict most with the teaching vision of the institution and, often, are the same processes that are in the way of attaining higher levels of teaching results in the classroom using selective technologies. A lesser number of schools use the exhaustive approach that attempts to identify all the processes within their schools or learning institutions and then prioritize them in order of redesign urgency. Defining in effect only those highest priority processes for change leads to a great concentration and focus on the part of teachers and administrators alike in seeking out strategies for how best to integrate technologies into their teaching plans, further accentuating students’ learning.

Cross et al.’s (2003) third step in the model was to understand and measure the existing processes and post the results publicly: From the context of change management, this is critical. Measurements of progress as defined by process improvements in teaching need to be posted in a teacher’s lounge or other area for other faculty to see progress. The public posting of performance metrics also creates awareness of which process areas are working the best, and which need to be more streamlined, perhaps more trimmed of excessive steps. This was a critical step in change management within the context of bringing technology into a school. Teachers and administrators alike need to see progress relative to plan and, if the data is publicly shown, the processes changed leads to more lasting change.

Cross et al.’s (2003) fourth step was to design and build a prototype of the new course that integrates technology: This is especially important for the creation of courses and in planning their use of technology. The prototype out of technologies available in the classroom will be used as part of the learning process, focusing on the use of the Internet to make the lesson plan and related context as topical as possible. What was critical in this step was that through the use of technology, the student got a sense of the immediacy of the outside world and the volatile and ever-changing nature. It is critical in the definition of a new course to use technology and specifically the Internet to make the material literally come alive for the student.

Cross et al.’s (2003) final step included measure, monitoring, and modifying. Using both scores and attitudinal surveys of students taken using the Likert-based scaling, those schools attaining best practices in integrating technologies and course content are constantly measuring their performance and posting charts in teacher’s lounges, their offices, and in other areas where only teachers can access. Measuring the impact of redefining teaching processes to the point of redefining an entire course to allow for technologies to more accurately map to it is measurable through both test scores and attitudinal data. Using these data as a collective benchmark to show progress is critical for any school to improve over the long run.

Exploring Lewin’s Model

Change is something that occurs in all types of businesses and institutes, regardless of what size, type or age. The world is continuously developing and changing; along with this rapid change is technology. Technology is constantly changing our lives, the way we do mundane things, to how we accomplish bigger goals. Although, technology is not only changing our lives, technology also changes every day. The concept or idea of change management should be familiar to institutions today, no matter what kind of institution. Although, how schools will manage this change varies on its given reception and understanding. This model centered on the perception that according to Smith (2001), Lewin saw in those affected by change move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo. This involves the state of change, the level of understanding it is received as well as the people involved in this change. Lewin (as cited in Smith) specifically considered a three-stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. The first stage involved creating a level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, which created conditions for change to be implemented. The necessary changes and needs for those changes should be determined. The second stage required organizing and using the resources of a school or learning institution to bring about change. There should be ensured support from the upper management of schools, or higher powers. Stage 3 involved embedding the processes into the organization after change. This involves good communication after the change is implemented, for the changes to be a success.

Clearly, the Lewin Model has many shortcomings specifically on the assumption that a status quo is achieved. This is a fallacy as change in learning institutions over time redefines a new status quo over time, and the more intensely the change impacts a company, the greater the effort to retain status quo. In reality, a new status quo is defined in the midst of every significant event that impacts a school. The Lewin Model is considered deficient due to this reason.

Exploring the Speed of Change Model

The speed of change can be seen in our everyday lives. If we look at our mode of transportation as well as our acceleration of knowledge, we can notice that there have been significant changes in the past decade, and technological developments are accelerating through the years; new innovations and inventions seem to rise more often.

Conner (2003) in the book, Managing at the Speed of Change, defined the Speed of Change Model that stated that each of us is designed by nature to move through life most effectively and efficiently at a unique pace that will allow us to face changes. Conner, in subsequent research, stated that educational institutions, including schools, colleges, and universities, also exhibit this phenomenon. Conner referred to this speed as the speed of change. Once change begins moving, it is like a snowball rolling down the hill; it gets bigger and faster as it goes along its way. It is suggested in that model that it is very critical for schools and educational institutions to be aware of this inherent nature of people. Individuals vary in every aspect, some may be resilient to change and others may not get enough of it. Also, some people are able to absorb change much more easily than others. When one is faced with changes at a rate much higher than what one can absorb, there are undesirable effects. This type of change may come as overwhelming to an individual and he or she may respond to it in a negative manner, leaving that individual stagnant, refusing to accommodate the changes. These undesirable effects could vary in severity, such as emotional burn out, inefficiency, sickness, destructive behavior on the campus, chronic absenteeism, and other forms of behavior that distances students from schools and educational institutions and leads to low productivity. The individual would feel that he or she cannot cope with the change and will blame his or herself for this. This may lead the individual’s interest in learning all together to come to a complete halt.

The message Conner (2003) delivered is that a point exists at which humans can no longer assimilate change without becoming dysfunctional and antisocial in behavior. These symptoms, however, are part of a broader issue specific to the integration of technologies into a classroom, namely the lack of buy-in and goal setting on the part of teachers, instructors, and administrators into technological change and its benefits. For any major effort to integrate technologies into classrooms there must be complete buy-in from the most senior administrators and leaders of any school. The top leadership must endorse change if it is to be successful. When a facilitator embraces change as a positive thing, it will be well received in the classroom and students will more likely regard the change as a good thing.

Conner (2003) explained in the Speed of Change Model that there exists a point at which humans can no longer assimilate change without displaying dysfunctional behavior. This is only when the leaders in any organization have not fully supported a new initiative or approach to integrating technology into a learning and teaching environment. Conner defined this point as future shock. This would cause students to reject the change, leaving them in a stagnant stage where there is no learning. This model also defines the single factor most necessary for individuals to increase their speed of change is human resilience. Human resilience is the ability to absorb higher levels of changes while maintaining equilibrium. There needs to be a well thought out balance in change, and instructors should know how to pace their lessons to accommodate students better in their learning environments in order to avoid shock. Conner recommended in the model that in order for change management efforts to be successful, resilient individuals should lead the change management efforts. It is only when change is seen as a positive thing by instructors or the management that students would be able to grasp this change rather than reject it as something they are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with. There are powerful guidelines for the traits of resilient people defined by Conner.

Limitations of Conner’s (2003) model include the assumptions that people wanted to be resilient and not   apathetic, which is what many people resort to when it comes to managing significant amounts of change overall. Idealistically, Conner saw those most capable or willing to change as having a strong sense of self-assurance and security, yet, in the midst of major change, people’s confidence is typically undermined and it makes them question it. Conner also made some unrealistic assumptions about how people reacted to change, and did not focus enough on the challenges they need to overcome internally to succeed. What was definitely suggested in the model was the fact that without strong support and focus from the top of any organization, any attempts to change how schools integrate technology will fail.

The Only constant is Change: How Technology is changing Schools  

The documents reviewed and the broader recognition that teachers themselves are in the midst of a fundamental change in their roles as educators to process experts in the integration of technology into the learning experiences of their students (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4).

Not only is change happening; the speed and nature of change itself quickly outmodes the stereotypes of teaching being the simple replaying of lesson plans and more attuned to being the mentors of a new generation of students who are eager to embrace technology and learn how to use it. Students are motivated by new technologies to learn how the technology itself works and the content being delivered is a major motivator for many of them. The teacher as leader and mentor must step up to the challenge of being the person who delivers insights into the subjects being taught and the technologies used to deliver them. Technologies need to be used for the streamlining of the teaching processes (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4).

Best Practices in Implementing Technologies in Schools

Schools and learning institutions accomplished best practices in their integration of technologies into classrooms that shared a common set of characteristics, which were defined in this section (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000, p. 4). There was significant research in each of these key best practices areas and their development is quickly revolutionizing the use of technologies to accentuate and strengthen the learning experience.

A high degree of ownership is critical for any new technology initiative to be successful, and this ownership must pervade the senior leadership to the instructor level. Teachers can be successful, but they must take ownership of a new instructional strategy or technological application for change (Kruse, 2003). For change to be lasting, teachers must passionately lead the change. This is a critical step in establishing change management in any educational institutions, regardless of its size.

McNamara (2006) defined change management as the ability of administrators to embrace the human side of change, specifically addressing the fact that people do not want to be changed; they want change to better their roles, responsibilities, and future in a learning institution or organization of any kind. For the classroom to be well facilitated, the teacher must know how to manage the lesson and take ownership over the new strategy of technological applications in the learning environment. McNamara argued that administrators need to embrace the aspect of how change itself is changing; the speed and intensity of change is modifying companies, and the most effective behaviors leads can show is empathy for those affected, and passion and genuine support for the strategies involved. For there to be a step forward in the classroom, instructors should not only accept the change, but be involved with it and fully integrate it with his or her teaching style. Resistance from this may cause learning to halt, since there needs to be cooperation on the teacher’s end as well. Jones et al. (2004) argued that the chief executive officer and senior management team must band together and have a consistent and strong show of support for any strategy to be successful and also for the culture to change. The entire school faculty has to be able to embrace the changes in teaching style and learn for themselves the new ways in technology for this to be successful in the classroom. They should show a positive attitude towards it and support for those who have not well accepted the changes so that learning can accelerate at the same speed technology develops.

Jones et al. (2004) stated creating ownership is critical; this must be aligned with the performance incentives of instructors and educators affected by the change. To take ownership, teachers must change any negative attitude towards the new changes in the teaching method and not themselves be overwhelmed by the level of change. Not to say this is an enticement but an indicator from administrators that those most affected have a future and are valued by the school, and that the contributions made using technology are very significant. The role of technology training for instructors needs to be focused on constant teacher skills development. What is clear from a review of the current literature on technology training for teachers is the need to create a lifelong learning commitment on the part of teachers to stay up to date with existing and new technologies. Often, training programs only provide basics and, unless the teacher knows how to modify those basics to make them relevant and meaningful, they will not be used (Bolick, Berson, Coutts, & Heinecke, 2003). Teachers will need to be motivated to be able to take ownership with the new changes in teaching methods; training programs are simply not enough. Effective classroom management is always about the methods as well as the behavior of the instructor, which shapes how the student learns. If a teacher is not interested in the topic he or she is teaching, students will not be well facilitated, creating a barrier in leaning. This goes the same with a teacher behavior and attitude towards accepting and even embracing technology in the classroom. A negative attitude can also affect the students in the same manner.

The confidence level toward technology increases as teachers receive formal training (Bell & Hofer, 2003). The more teachers understand about the new technologies, the easier it will be for them to facilitate students in learning using these new technologies. Additional researchers (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Edmondson, 2003; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2003; Teacher Training Agency, 2002; Teclehaimanot, 2006; Teclehaimanot & Czerniak, 2005) concluded that teachers required in-service training on specific technology applications to integrate computers into the curriculum in meaningful ways. Because of the fast-paced technology, teachers will also have to learn the new ways of the cyber-age even if they are slightly familiar with it (Goodman, 2002). This training will help them better grasp the teaching methods as well as help them learn how to be comfortable with the changes in instruction. Baylor and Ritchie (2002) showed that formal staff training was a significant factor in increasing the use of computers by teachers. They alsoobserved that the value of staff training increased when teachers met informally to discuss teaching practices and project ideas. It all boils down on the attitude of the reception of these new teaching methods by the faculty (International Society for Technology in Education, 2010).

There is a deliberate shift in pedagogical practices from being teacher centered to being student centered, using technologies to compensate for the varying speeds at which students learn (Goodman, 2002). This is a major shift occurring in conjunction with the change in the use of technologies. The role of the teacher is more aligned with mentor and advisor, and this happens when the processes mentioned earlier in this literature review are streamlined to give the student more depth of insight into subjects using the technologies available (International Society for Technology in Education, 2010). The traditional focus of professional development in technology has focused on providing teachers with hands-on guidance on how to use the equipment rather than redefining their teaching processes and approaches using the benefits of the technologies (Gray, 2002).

Educators need to learn how to use technology in context, matching the needs and abilities of learners to the curriculum goals (Gordon, 2003). Trucano (2005) reported on the use of technology in kindergarten through Grade 12 education and described technology as supporting a major shift in education toward the student-centered or constructivist paradigm (International Society for Technology in Education, 2010). This move away from instructor-led teaching strategies is based on the premise that it is learning with, not from or about, technology that makes computer-based technologies important tools in a constructivist learning environment (Trucano).

The push to provide t??hn?l?gy in ??h??l? has b??n ?u?????ful in r???nt y?ar?. ????rding to Byr?m 2003, m??t ??h??l? have ??mput?r labs and ??v?ral have ??mput?r? in ?v?ry ?la??r??m. M?r? than (90%) of all ??h??l? are linked to the Internet, and more than (33%) of ?du?at?r? have Internet ??nn??ti?n in their ?la??r??m? (Byr?m, 2003). Yet ?du?at?r? readily ??nf??? that th?y are not making as much ?mpl?y of t??hn?l?gy as th?y ??uld.   ????rding to an Education W??k r???ar?h, alm??t thirty p?r??nt of ?du?at?r? said their pupils u?? ??mput?r? only one hour per w??k; alm??t forty p?r??nt said their l?arn?r? do not u?? ??mput?r? in the ?la??r??m at all (Br?dy, 2003). ?lth?ugh t??hn?l?gy is more ??mm?n in the ??h??l?, many fa?t?r? influ?n?? whether and how it is ?mpl?y?d. ?h??? ?l?m?nt? ??ntain pla??m?nt of ??mput?r? for fair a?????, t??hni?al a??i?tan??, ?ff??tiv? ?bj??tiv?? for t??hn?l?gy utilization, and new r?l?? for ?du?at?r?, time for ??ntinuing pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt, proper ??a?hing of ?du?at?r? at different ?xp?rti?? l?v?l?, ?du?at?r in??ntiv?? for u??, a?????ibility of ?du?ati?nal ??ftwar?, and ??ntinu?d funding for t??hn?l?gy.

Without permanent t??hni?al a??i?tan??, t??hn?l?gy in??rp?rati?n in the ?la??r??m will never be adequately a?hi?v?d (Cliff?rd, 2003). M??t ?du?at?r? have heard horror tal?? about ?quipm?nt breakdown, ??ftwar? difficulty, data l???, ?mbarra??m?nt?, and aggravation. Th?y do not want to be left hanging with thirty ?tud?nt? ?p??ulating why nothing is working the way it is ?upp???d to be. When ?du?at?r? attempt to utilize t??hn?l?gy in their ?la??r??m?, and th?y ?n??unt?r diffi?ulti??, th?y n??d in?tant h?lp and a??i?tan??. “Helping t??hn?l?gy u??r? while th?y are actively involved with t??hn?l?gy at their work pla?? is probably the m??t meaningful, n?????ary and appr??iativ? a??i?tan?? that can be given,” advi??? Br?dy. (Cliff?rd, 2003)

Timing is ?v?rything, ?p??ifi?ally when it ??m?? to ?quipm?nt. “Real learning tak?? pla?? (or pr?v?nt?) when really trying the new ?quipm?nt,” states ?nd?r??n 2005. “Th? pr??min?nt way to win ?xt?n?iv? u?? of new skills is to provide just-in-time a??i?tan??, ?upp?rt, and ?n??urag?m?nt when required. Not t?m?rr?w. Not next w??k. Only Now!” (?nd?r??n 2005).  ????rding to the T??hn?l?gy and Education Reform, ?m?ri?an Department of Education report by Clifford (2003) “If t??hni?al i??u?? happ?n frequently and ?du?at?r? have to wait hours, days, or w??k? to get them fixed, th?y will abandon their ?truggl?? to integrate t??hn?l?gy.” (pg. 35)

Bringing lasting change to any school or learning institution must start with the processes by which teachers attempt to deliver insights, provide interesting content, and foster a highly productive learning experience. The role of process change is critical for an appreciation of how pedagogical models are changing today away from being teacher centered and gravitating to being more students’ centered. The fact that the teacher must own the process and the redefinition of their courses to include more effective use of technologies to bring concepts to life is at the heart of making technological change effective in classrooms. T??hn?l?gy is not tran?f?rmativ? on its own.  R???ar?h points out that when ?mpl?y?d ?ffi?i?ntly, “t??hn?l?gy appli?ati?n? can a??i?t high?r-?rd?r thinking by involving l?arn?r? in authentic, difficult ta?k? within j?int learning ??nt?xt?” (H?lum and Gahala, 2005). Instead of ??n??ntrating on i??lat?d, ?xp?rti??-ba??d utilizations of t??hn?l?gy, ??h??l? ?h?uld ?n??urag? the utilization of different t??hn?l?gy for ??phi?ti?at?d i??u?-r???lving and inf?rmati?n-r?tri?ving ?bj??tiv??. (Br?dy, 2003)

In ?th?r terms, new skills can be an appropriate v?hi?l? for ?n??uraging meaningful, involved learning. It ?nabl?? pupil? t? work an real, meaningful, and ?hall?nging i??u??, similar t? ta?k? ?x??ut?d by ?xp?rt? in various r?gulati?n?; t? ??mmuni?at? with data in means that enable ?tud?nt-dir??t?d l?arning; t? ??n?tru?t kn?wl?dg? ??llab?rativ?ly; and t? ??mmuni?at? with ?xp?rt? in the domain. ???hn?l?gi?? al?? can be utilized t? ?n??urag? the d?v?l?pm?nt of high?r-?rd?r thinking ?xp?rti?? and enable ?pp?rtuniti?? for ?du?at?r? t? act as fa?ilitat?r? or guid?? and ?ft?n as a ??-l?arn?r with the l?arn?r?.

In the ?la??r??m?, ?du?at?r? can d?v?l?p a myriad of t??hn?l?gy-?upp?rt?d inv?lv?d l?arning pr?j??t? that allow pupil? t? r???lv? a?tual-w?rld i??u??, r?tri?v? information from online r???ur???, and atta?h with pr?f???i?nal?. T??hn?l?gy in??rp?rati?n brings change to ?du?at?r?’ in?tru?ti?nal r?gulati?n? in the ?la??r??m. Th? ?du?at?r? r?l?? in a t??hn?l?gy-infu??d ?la??r??m ?ft?n move t? that of a facilitator or trainer rather than a teacher. (R?drigu?z and Knuth, 2006). T??hn?l?gy utilization al?? tends t? f??t?r ???p?rati?n among pupil? (H?lum and Gahala, 2005). Br?dy, (2003) d??um?nt th??? and ?th?r m?difi?ati?n? in the According to Shelley, Cashman, Gunter, and Gunter (2004), in any society, educators have the ability to make an enormous positive contribution. Furthermore, the positive contribution is a challenge and educators must have the desire and willfulness to embark on new teaching and training venues. Meltzer (2006) agreed,

To meet the challenge of addressing the educational needs of the new generation, it is imperative that educators find a comfort level with this technology. It need not be a complete and complex understanding of the mechanics, but rather a working knowledge and understanding of the potential of the tool. (p. 1)

Instructors are beginning to know they must have the knowledge to instruct prospective leaders and the general public that technology is and will be here to stay.

The CEO Forum (2008) reported, “We need to harness technology to benefit our nation’s schools, communities and, most importantly, students” (p. 1). To embrace technology, educators need assistance and professional development on how to use computers and other forms of technology as resources to augment their prospectus. Ficklen and Muscara (2001) reported that currently only 29% of students have teachers who use computers to explain difficult concepts. This means the preponderance of learners today may not have the inclusive advantage of what technology could bring to their environment. This may also mean that many educators are not getting the kind of significant support that technology may provide.

According to Valdez (2005), students’ use of the Internet or World Wide Web plays a major role in their relationships with their friends, families, and schools. Because of today’s technology with the internet global connections are easier, faster and more efficient. The internet and the World Wide Web have made interacting with each other possible even when the other person is on the other side of the planet. The internet has been bridging physical gaps in terms of communication. However, students and their parents generally think use of the Internet is to assist their child or children with homework, research, and varied assignments. Instead of going to the library, children can now easily find information on the internet to help them with their academic work. Children have enthusiastically accepted cyber-games, blogs, and varied chat rooms as a form of entertainment. In today’s generation, children enjoy the benefits of cyber-space without leaving the comfort and safety of their homes. These individuals flourish and depend on the exhilarating world of technology, habitually, hoping to be amused simply by its existence.

Valdez (2005) indicated that now that such a gravid number of Americans regularly use the Internet to conduct daily activities, individuals who lack access to these tools are at a growing disfavor. Therefore, raising the level of digital inclusion by increasing the number of Americans using the technology tools of the digital age is a vitally important national goal (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, & National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2008).

The lack of technology usage in schools is a constant problem. (International Society for Technology in Education ,2010). Children have to be able to incorporate what they already know about technology and its developments to be able to progress in their academe. Since children are already comfortable using digital devices and the World Wide Web, their ways of learning have also shifted from how students a decade or so ago are used to absorbing information. Schools will also have to adapt to today’s changing technology to fit a curriculum best taught in the way children will learn. Research (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Merrill, 2004) in the past decade has shown that computer technology is an effective means for widening educational opportunities, but most teachers neither use technology as an instructional delivery system nor integrate technology into their curriculum. This could be for a number of reasons, mainly because some teachers are not yet comfortable with the idea of this integration or that basic training is not readily available to equip them with the right skills or knowledge about technology based instruction. In addition, International Society for Technology in Education (as cited in Bauer & Kenton) and Morrison & Lowther (as cited in Bauer & Kenton) reported that teachers in the United States are generally underprepared to integrate technology into instruction in meaningful ways. It is more than just a generational or age gap between students and teachers with being comfortable with the use of technology. Additionally, National Center for Education Statistics (as cited in Bauer & Kenton) indicated that only one third of teachers reported that they were well prepared to use technology in their classroom instruction. With today’s fast-paced technology development, this is not nearly acceptable enough to be enhancing students’ learning experiences. Teachers are to be able to utilize new technologies as they were made to create an ease in performing tasks; not just for students but for teachers as well.

Computers, E-mail, distant learning, and the Internet have changed the way of instruction in all regions and throughout the world (International Society for Technology in Education, 2010). They are creating jobs in what is known as cyber-space, as well as creating virtual environments where people can meet, learn or general just interact with each other. As the technology realm moves forward, it is crucial that teachers gain astuteness and perception of computers and their uses. The technology which is constantly developing is not only for means of communication, game-playing or interacting, it can be used as a vital tool in the classroom. Children today are more interested in learning or participation where it’s more digital and considered high-tech; teachers need to learn how to embrace this technological shift and development for the better of his or her students. Today’s teachers must use computers as a tool to facilitate learning (Shelley et al., 2004). Classrooms should move forward along with the developments of technology in order for the educational system to keep up with the transformations in society.

Shelley et al. (2004) reported that teachers must be able to access technology resources and plan classroom activities using available technologies. To be able to do this, they would first need to embrace the developments in technology and have a positive attitude towards it.  Innovative use of appropriate technology has the tendency to be limited to individual schools or educational settings (Meredyth, Russell, Blackwood, Thomas, & Wise, 2000). This suggests that the didactic, directorial, and professional development needs of faculty and staff need to be addressed if technological learning is to be successful in educational settings. Action needs to be taken within the school board to be able to fully implement this technology integrated learning. Shelley et al. stated that a solid foundation of information literacy and computer usage is essential in understanding how to use technology appropriately and correctly. Thus, basic training should be readily available for faculty and staff to be able to facilitate a healthy learning environment for the students using technology as a tool. Shelley et al. also stated that learning about computer technology will assist educators to become better facilitators of learning dynami?? of the ?la??r??m?. Education, classroom management and the way teachers deliver instructions should be integrated with technology to help the system move forward along with the accelerated developments in today’s digital age.

?? l?arn?r? b???m? more ??lf-dir??t?d, ?du?at?r? who are not a??u?t?m?d t? a?ting as fa?ilitat?r? or trainers may not know how t??hn?l?gy can be utilized as part of a?tiviti?? that are not ?du?at?r-dir??t?d. Students have become more independent in their tasks with the help of the internet, and teachers will have to adapt to this in order to be able to facilitate their learning needs. In the case of the internet, children have self-taught themselves in order to keep up with the fad in technology. This ??nditi?n may be a ?up?rb ?pp?rtunity for the ?du?at?r not only t? learn from the l?arn?r but al?? t? paradigm being an information ???k?r, lifelong ?tud?nt, and risk taker. “Edu?at?r? mu?t b???m? ?a?y letting l?arn?r? move into domains of information where th?y th?m??lv?? la?k skill, and th?y mu?t be capable t? paradigm their own l?arning pr????? when th?y m??t ph?n?m?na th?y do not realize or qu??ti?n? th?y ?ann?t answer”. (?nd?r??n, 2004).

?u?h pr?j??t? can be impl?m?nt?d for all grade l?v?l?. Above all is the need to embrace change management strategies. Several models are included in this literature review, showing the impact of a teachers’ true commitment to change at the pedagogical level.

In this review of the literature, based predominately on change management theories, it was suggested that educational change factors seek to address recommendations for individual faculty, staff, educational stakeholders, and other county educational entities, in looking at the challenge of the successful implementation of educational technology usage in instruction. The goal of educational change is to provide optimal learning for all students in the ever-changing technological society of the 21st century.

L?arning the new r?gulati?n? and m?th?d? of teaching that go hand-in-hand with t??hn?l?gy in??rp?rati?n n??d? that ?du?at?r? have ?pp?rtuniti?? t? ??ntribut? in an ?xt?nd?d pr???dur? of pr?f???i?nal growth. Edu?at?r? n??d time t? obtain t??hn?l?gy ?xp?rti?? and d?v?l?p new teaching p?li?i?? for in??rp?rating t??hn?l?gy into the ?la??r??m?. Ex??pt for rare in ??rvi?? programs, ?du?at?r? ?ft?n have no time ??n?tru?t?d into the ??h??l day for their own pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt.

Pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt time is particularly ?ignifi?ant when ?du?at?r? are l?arning new t??hn?l?gy ?xp?rti??, n?t?? Byr?m, 2003:

“This time for l?arning is particularly ?ignifi?ant as ??h??l? integrated information and multimedia ?quipm?nt into the ?la??r??m?. When a ??h??l aims t? p??iti?n th??? ?quipm?nt, ?a?h ?du?at?r mu?t b???m? adept at their u??, r???gniz? suitable hardware and ??ftwar? for his or her ?ubj??t matter and l?arn?r?, and sit down t? work on the ??mput?r. L?arning t? ?mpl?y modern t??hn?l?gy well is a???mpli?h?d b??t when ?du?at?r? have time a?????ibl? t? learn in a number of ways. Edu?at?r? n??d large bl??k? of time t? attain initial kn?wl?dg? with lat??t hardware or ??ftwar?, l?arning and practicing for ?u?tain?d ?ra?. ?im? t? examine a ?kill?d u??r model an appli?ati?n in his or her ?la??r??m, time t? intend a new hypermedia ?ta?k, or time for group r?fl??ti?n on a ?urr?ntly tried appli?ati?n–all ?ugg??t?d appr?a?h?? t? pr?f???i?nal growth–?h?uld be made a?????ibl? daily.” (Byr?m, 2003)

When pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt a?ti?n? are ?arri?d out after ??h??l, ?du?at?r? may not have the ?n?rgy ????ntial for involving in l?arning. R?drigu?z and Knuth 2006 n?t??, “The study on p?r??nn?l d?v?l?pm?nt d???rib?? that it’? least helpful when it’? done at the end of the ??h??l day.” (R?drigu?z and Knuth, 2006) ??m? ?b??rv?r? pr?p??? that the suitable time for ?du?at?r? t? inv?lv? in pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt a?ti?n? is during the ?umm?r, when l?arn?r? are not a ??n?id?rati?n and ?du?at?r? do not have as ??v?ral demands on their time. But ?du?at?r? are more likely t? impl?m?nt new in?tru?ti?nal p?li?i?? if th?y get f??dba?k and ?upp?rt while attempting the new plans in their ?la??r??m?.

??m? ?b??rv?r? ?upp?rt ?mb?dding pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt time into the ??h??l day and ??h??l year t? in?r?a?? its ?ff??t. P?li?i?? for pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt time ??ntain fr??d-up time, r??tru?tur?d or r???h?dul?d time, ??mm?n time, b?tt?r-u??d time, pur?ha??d time, and v?lunt??r time.

B?f?r? pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt is intended, ?a?h ?du?at?r’? ?urr?nt l?v?l of t??hn?l?gy ?xp?rti?? ?h?uld be d??id?d by using appropriate t??l?, ?u?h as the ?du?ati?nal T??hn?l?gy F?undati?n? for All ??a?h?r? d?v?l?p?d as part of the National ?du?ati?nal T??hn?l?gy Standards (Bell and Ramirez, 2004). Th??? standards can be utilized t? d??id? the skill l?v?l of individual ?du?at?r? and their n??d? for pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt. ??lf-?valuati?n dir??tly a????iat?d t? the t??hn?l?gy l?arning ?bj??tiv?? ??t by the ??h??l al?? is suitable and ?ff??tiv?.

?ft?r the ?du?at?r?’ skill l?v?l? are r???gniz?d, admini?trat?r?, ?du?at?r?, and the t??hn?l?gy ?xp?rt? can brainstorm t? d??id? what ?upp?rt and r???ur??? ?du?at?r? n??d t? pr?gr??? t? the next stage. Edu?at?r? can d?v?l?p own plans for pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt that ??ntain ?bj??tiv?? for using t??hn?l?gy. Th??? pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt ?trat?gi?? can be capability driven, r???gnizing particular areas where t??hn?l?gy can be u??d ?ffi?i?ntly; th?y can ?p??ify r??ult? t? be a?hi?v?d using t??hn?l?gy, ?u?h as applying particular pr?j??t? with l?arn?r?; and th?y can list ??ftwar? appli?ati?n? that ?h?uld be ma?t?r?d by particular dat??. By putting individual ?bj??tiv?? in writing, th??? ?trat?gi?? formalize ?du?at?r?’ ??mmitm?nt t? ?mpl?ying t??hn?l?gy in the ?la??r??m? (R?drigu?z and Knuth, 2006).

Individual training, p??r ?du?ati?n, ???p?rati?n, networking, and mentoring have b??n u??d ?ff??tiv?ly ?v?r ?xt?nd?d ?ra? t? h?lp ?du?at?r? at all l?v?l? of t??hn?l?gy ?x??uti?n d?v?l?p t??hn?l?gy appli?ati?n? that pr?m?t? inv?lv?d l?arning. Edu?at?r? at the n?vi?? stage who n??d t? d?v?l?p fundamental ??mput?r ?xp?rti?? will n??d more individual ??n??ntrati?n and ?h?uld be provided ample time t? pra?ti?? their ?xp?rti??. If l?arning by doing is ?ignifi?ant for l?arn?r?, it is ????ntial for ?du?at?r? (H?lum and Gahala, 2005). ?? ?du?at?r? begin t? regard t??hn?l?gy as ?quipm?nt t? a???mpli?h in?tru?ti?nal ?bj??tiv??, th?y will learn b??t when inv?lv?d in meaningful pr?j??t? that a????iat? t? their own ?la??r??m?. Proper individualized ?upp?rt from p??r? in addition t? ?xp?rt? ?upp?rt? ?du?at?r? t? ?xp?rim?nt with new plans for t??hn?l?gy utilization. Edu?at?r? ?h?uld have the ?h?i?? t? inv?lv? in the ??rt of w?rk?h?p?, ??minar?, and online pr?f???i?nal ???i?ti?? that will h?lp them utilize t??hn?l?gy ?u?????fully. ?im? for ind?p?nd?nt r???ar?h, ?xp?rim?ntati?n, and program d?v?l?pm?nt al?? is ?ignifi?ant. (Bell and Ramirez, 2004)

Edu?at?r t??hn?l?gy training that d?v?l?p? upon ?a?h ?du?at?r’? background and ?xp?ri?n??? is ?bvi?u?ly not ?a?y t? apply, and it n??d? two things in ?h?rt supply in m??t ??h??l di?tri?t?: time and money. T? ?uffi?i?ntly m??t the l?arning r?quir?m?nt? of all l?arn?r?, n?v?rth?l???, ?v?ry ?du?at?r not just the r??id?nt ??mput?r ?xp?rt mu?t be capable t? go beyond fundamental ??mput?r fun?ti?n? t? ?mpl?y t??hn?l?gy as a ?pringb?ard t? inv?lv?d l?arning in ?v?ry ?la??r??m. (Cliff?rd, 2003)

Research Questions

The following research questions were developed based on the identification of variables through the review of pertinent literature:

(1) What were the perceptions of the faculty and staff toward technology professional development programs within this county?

(2) What were the reactions of faculty members in the targeted school to participating in the technology professional development programs?

(3) To what extent were teachers integrating technology into their lessons?

(4) Would more frequent and regular participation in regularly scheduled training and professional development result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of teachers?

(5) What were the perceived and reported deficiencies educators’ reported that hindered educators in their technological proficiency?

Chapter 3: Methodology

Methodology of the Study

The methodology utilized for this study was mixed method evaluation. Evaluation of both individual materials and complete instructional programs is the key to the success of any instructional activity (Newby, Stepich, & Russell, 2005). Further, Newby et al. stated that evaluation research in education is the process of determining to what extent the educational objectives are actually being understood.

Anonymous and non-anonymous surveys, teacher observations, questionnaires, and interviews were used to document the current role of technology usage in classroom instruction in the school. Appropriate measuring instruments, including surveys and questionnaires, were developed as quantitative data collection tools. Additional means of collecting qualitative data, included interviews and classroom annotations were developed for the study. This data was not anonymous. Robson (2002) indicated that surveys and questionnaires are some of the most widely used data collection instruments in educational research.

The rationale for using surveys and questionnaires was that they provided a plausibly simple and uncomplicated access to the study of mannerisms, values, beliefs, and intention of the person who completed the instrument. Also, surveys or questionnaires may be modified to collect general data from almost any human population. The data collected from surveys or questionnaires was both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The presence of the interviewer can encourage participation and involvement, and the interviewer can judge the extent to which the exercise is being treated seriously (Robson, 2002).

Participants   

Eligible participants in this study included 35 full-time instructional faculty and staff members, 1 school technology coordinator, and 1 county technology coordinator serving kindergarten through Grade 5. Potential participants each received a flier via a meeting held in the library of the school describing the study, its aims, and the steps that were taken to assure their anonymity.

One week later, all potential participants received a survey instrument, via a volunteer at the school at a staff meeting. The volunteer also gave participation letters and consent forms to the teachers who might want to volunteer to participate in the observations and the interviews. Volunteers were asked to return their participation materials to the designated box in the school’s faculty lounge.

Research Instruments and Procedures

Formative and summative advisory committees in this study were formed to validate the survey and other instruments but did not participate as respondents in the study itself. The formative committee had representation from the district technology cadre, the technology coordinator, and school administrative department. The summative committee consisted of two instructional curriculum personnel and two federal program leaders and the superintendent from the school district.

The evaluation criterion was based on the information gathered from the literature review. Such as studies by ?nd?r??n (2005), stating that teachers are lacking education and training in technology themselves. The draft of the criteria was presented to the formative panel for review and feedback.

The advisory committees also provided input for the criteria, evaluation design, and the evaluation report.

Formative members were asked to write comments on the draft of the Faculty and Staff Survey (see Appendix A) and return the rough draft copy to the investigator for modifying the criteria based on the critique of the group. After review of the responses, the modified draft copy was presented to the summative panel for review and feedback. The summative panel reviewed the document and had no further suggestions. The version of the criteria was then considered valid.

The criteria was used in the creation and validation of the assessment design, which included instruments for gathering data and information from the classroom teachers,  thus, assessing teachers’ perceptions and/or reactions toward technology as well as the effectiveness of the usage of educational technology in classroom instruction (see Appendix A). Also, technology interview guides and teacher observation logs were utilized in this study (See Appendixes B, C, D, and E).

The draft of additional assessment tools was submitted to the formative panel for review and clarification. Varied surveys (which ones) and questionnaires (which ones?) were used for gathering data with the purpose of collecting feedback related to  teachers’ utilization and integration of technology in instruction.

The survey instrument utilized in this study included limited-choice responses, Likert-type scales, and open-ended questions. Choice questions focused on the teachers’ outlay of time for preparation of lessons that integrated technology in instruction, participation in professional development that augmented integration of this knowledge into classroom instruction of technology, identification of teaching style, and calculation of the amount of time spent on utilization of technology in instruction. Likert-type scale items measured attitudes about the importance of instructional technology and the degree of county and local administrative support for technology as seen by the classroom teacher. Open-ended questions focused on the staff’s vision of the optimal use of technology in instruction and the conditions that supported the faculty and staff as they strived to implement educational venues and change in an ever changing technological society.

The restricted indication of choice questions and Likert-type scale items were sorted according to the five research questions they addressed, and used descriptive statistics to display the information. The qualitative open-ended items were used to identify patterns within the faculty and staff responses. This course of action attempted to evaluate the extent to which the teachers were receptive to change by applying educational technology skills and competencies effectively in classroom instruction.

Classroom observations. The researcher completed three classroom observations at the elementary school. The subjects of these observations were faculty and staff who volunteered for the study. Approval to conduct this research was first obtained from the superintendent. Potential participants were contacted via flier and invited to participate. All teachers being observed were informed of the superintendent’s approval for observation, and assured in writing that observations were for research purposes only and that their identity would be kept confidential. All participants signed a consent form when they volunteered to participate in this phase of the study.

The format indicated by Maddin (2002) was utilized to categorize the components of philosophy of teaching   (Appendix B). The observations were announced events that allowed the researcher to observe faculty, staff, and students utilizing technology in the classroom setting. The observation log format was shared with each teacher prior to each observation. Each observation was approximately 60 minutes in duration.  The observation data was organized according to DICE’s educational change factors.

Interviews were conducted with the school technology coordinator, and the county technology coordinator.  These interviews enabled further exploration of the variables identified in the research questions and a comparison of that data to the faculty and staff survey and observation data collected. During the interview with the school’s technology coordinator (STC), questions (see appendix C) were asked about the primary duties of the STC’s position; how the STC aided teachers in developing the knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology into instruction effectively; what the STC thought were the obstacles to integrating technology in instruction; and how technology resource decisions were made at the school. The interview lasted approximately 60 minutes.

In the faculty interviews, teachers were asked how they learned the things that they needed to know about technology integration and utilization in classroom instruction. The teachers were asked to discuss the types of learning activities that were best accomplished using technology. The teachers were also asked what might make the challenge of integrating technology in the classroom easier for them to accomplish. The teacher interviews varied in duration and content. Two of the interviews took place during the teachers’ plan time and lasted approximately 50 minutes; the other teacher interview was after school and lasted 45 minutes. Field notes were taken but the interviews were not recorded by tape or video. Appendix D contains the questions that were used during the interviews the teachers.

The county technology coordinator was interviewed using the guide in Appendix E. These questions focused on how teachers learned about instructional technology in the district and what professional development opportunities were available. The county technology coordinator was also asked to describe the primary responsibilities of his job and about the county’s vision for technology integration, and how it was being communicated to teachers and STCs. Finally, the county technology coordinator was asked how the county addressed obstacles to technology integration and what strategies had been used to help teachers and STCs overcome these obstacles. The interview lasted approximately fifty-five minutes and field notes were taken during the interview.

The analyzed and reported assessment data were used to conduct a gap analysis (New York State Education Department [NYSED], 2004).

Research Questions

The following research questions were answered by conducting research within the classroom, teacher interviews, as well as through surveys:

(1) What were the perceptions of the faculty and staff toward technology professional development programs within this district?

The “Technology Survey for staff” addressed this research question in questions #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10.

Classroom observations were conducted to determine if teachers utilized integrated technology in their instruction.

(2) What were the reactions of faculty members in the targeted school to participating in the technology professional development programs? Questions #28, #29 and #30 of the “Technology survey for staff” asked participants for their opinions related to participation in the technology professional development programs.

(3) To what extent were teachers integrating technology into their lessons?

Teacher observations were made in the classroom to see whether they were incorporating or utilizing technology in the classroom. Survey questions #11, #12, #13, #14, #15 and #16 from “Technology survey for staff” also addressed this research question.

(4) Did more frequent and regular participation in in regularly scheduled training and professional development result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of teachers?

Survey questions #20 – #28 from “technology survey for faculty and staff” regarding the level of comfort teachers have with using technology in the classroom were asked.

(5) What were the perceived and reported deficiencies educators’ report that hindered educators in their technological proficiency?

Classroom observations helped determine what teachers lack to be able to proficiently use technology in their classrooms. Survey question #’s 4-10 were used to determine the extent of the teachers’ technology use (helped paint an idea of as to what) and their level (the teachers are in with regards to technology usage) of proficiency.

The following procedures were used in this study to search for the answers to the research questions that guided this study. The study and subsequent data analysis  then the development of the final dissertation report took approximately six months to complete.

First, a comprehensive review of pertinent research and literature was conducted. A review of applicable theories and concepts relating to educational technology integration and utilization in classroom instruction, as well as change, was studied and used in the formation of assessment design, appropriate evaluation criteria, and recommendations.

Next, the formative and summative committees were formed and convened to provide input on the criteria, assessment design, and the evaluation report. These two committees also validated the research instruments.

Assumptions

It was assumed that the participants answered the survey and interview questions honestly and completely. It was also assumed that the classroom observations reflected what was actually going on in day to day instruction and the utilization and integration of technology in thoise classrooms with the teachers.

Chapter 4:  Results

Overview of the Study

The results of this evaluation study were organized using the research questions. The primary research instrument was a teacher technology survey. There was a total of 37 eligible participants and the response rate for the surveys was 100%. The information from the teacher technology survey is represented in a table format (see Appendix A) and in narrative format.

Research Questions and Data Collected

(1) What was the perception of the faculty and staff toward technology professional development programs within this county?

According to the survey results 36.4% of the teachers regarded technology to be important to students learning. Through an interview, it was discovered that the county’s technology coordinator through felt that technology will provide ample learning opportunities for students, and will be a positive step towards development. Survey question 19 referred to in Table 2, (45.4%) of the respondents rated technology integration as “somewhat important” in terms of the county’s vision for technology. When asked how the school would receive this, (100%) of the respondents answered that the school would be supportive.

(2) What were the reactions of faculty members in the targeted school to participating in the technology professional development programs?

The survey results showed that many of the teacher and staff participants were ambiguous of the county’s intent to integrate technology in the school’s educational curriculum. According to the results in survey question 30, the county’s vision for technology was not clear for a majority of the respondents, (62.6%) of the respondents failed to articulate the county’s vision for technology. A large (56.8%) of the respondents stated that the school is in need of additional computers for every student, as well as other resources to be able to participate in the technology development programs. According to answers in survey question 19, (45.4%) of the respondents believe that technology is only “somewhat important” in the curriculum.

(3) To what extent were teachers integrating technology in to their lessons?

The surveys showed that almost (45.7%) of the teachers who participated in the survey never use technology in the classroom, and the ones who do only integrate technology on a rare basis. (43.8%) of the respondents only used technology in their lessons 1- 3 hours per week, and (10.5%) integrated their lessons with technology more than 10 hours per week. Answers to survey question number 10 resulted in (34.5%) of the respondents stating that students only used technology for special projects and only (20.7%) claimed that students used technology every day. According to answers for survey question number 11, (85.29%) of respondents believe that students’ use of technology is “just enough”. Survey question 10, “How many hours per week do you typically spend in planning for instruction” was asked to examine if the teachers perceived technology to be a priority need. The majority of the respondents selected the two highest levels of technology use together (51.71%) that is “every day” (20.68) and “every few days” (31.03%) respectively, for this limited choice item. However a high percentage of the respondents chose “only for special projects” (34.48%).

(4) Did more frequent and regular participation in regularly scheduled training and professional development result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of teachers?

Only (15.8%) of the respondents reported that they were comfortable in integrating technology in to their lessons, and (60.5%) of the respondents believed that they needed more experience with technology to be able to facilitate their students’ learning. (23.5%) of the respondents answered that they only had very little experience with technology and some training is needed for this to be improved. Survey question 22 asked teachers to rate how comfortable they were in identifying research related use of instruction in the curriculum. (65.4%) answered that they had very little experience in this aspect, and (15.8%) stated that they had some experience. Survey question 26 asked respondents to indicate their level of comfort in using technology as a medium of instruction, and only (21.1%) of the respondents said that they would be comfortable with doing this.

(5) What was the perceived and reported deficiencies educators report that hindered educators in their technological proficiency?

For survey question 15, respondents were asked to rate the quality of software available for other students’ use. (71.9%) of the respondents stated that the software available was “adequate” and (28.1%) of the respondents believed that the software was inadequate. Survey question 27 asked respondents of what they thought of the professional development training needs the school has to administer and the results were as follows: (23.7%) believed that they need more training in basic computer use, (39.5%) believe that they need more knowledge and training in developing projects for the World Wide Web, (31.6%) believed that they need more awareness of resources and research devices for students with special needs, (32.4%) believe that they need more resources and research devices for ESL students, (21.1%) believe that they need more experience in the creation and use of multimedia.

In order to examine whether teachers perceived technology to be a priority need, it was also important to observe how often teachers integrated technology in instruction. Three classroom observations were conducted. One of the teachers’ observed incorporated technology into daily instruction with only two computers on in the back of the classroom. The teacher used an LCD projector attached to her laptop to display a mathematics problem that was used for morning work or attention work as she termed it for introducing the lesson according to the instruction of PEPE.  In addition, the teacher stated that the technology integration she had learned was from being a technology mentor and mainly on a trial and error basis.

The second teacher observed was not able to integrate technology in instruction on a daily basis. However during the observation, the teacher emphatically stated that “it is very important for our students to have access to computers in the school because it opens doors for them. Many students do not have the privilege of owning a computer at home. The students are not able to get experience that allows them to become a part of the fast growing technology-based society that we live in. Computers are also a wealth for finding information. The ability to find information and use it properly will play a colossal role in their academic achievement”.   The teacher also stated “while using the computers in the classroom the students are usually very implicated and occupied. Computers are a great way for students to pace themselves and allow the teacher to provide individual attention that some students require so often”.

The third teacher observed had seven computers going and students at each computer. She had each student looking up varied topics for a web quest project.  She instructed the other students on their assignments. The teacher said she wanted all students to have equitable access to the computers so she had each of her students on a rotated schedule with a timer to let the students know when they needed to rotate. She told me the ideal situation would be to have all students at an individual computer as she instructed from her laptop. It was highly evident that this teacher tried to implicate the indicator items on PEPE by providing the technology usage as well as providing equitable use.

The second research question was asked to examine the data that may or may not reveal the progress school leaders made toward clarity of that vision for teachers. The findings relevant to Research Question 2 the responses conveyed to the following survey questions and interviews are outlined in narrative as follows:

The county’s vision for integrating technology and instruction was examined in an interview with the county technology coordinator. The county’s technology coordinator in interview question 3 was asked, “What is the county vision for technology integration?” and, “How is this vision communicated to teachers and building technology coordinators?” The response from the county technology coordinator is reported in narrative form as follows:

“The County Board of Education adheres to the educational technology vision developed by the State Department of Education’s (SDE) Technology Planning Committee. It is the vision of some of the County Board of Education’s educators and administrators to oversee the unique powers of technology to provide challenging and stimulating learning opportunities for students throughout the county. We believe that seamless integration and equitable access to the most high tech tools and applications will benefit students by equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the teaching and learning process essential to success in a 21st century global economy”. During the interview the county technology coordinator stressed the importance of this vision. He expressed his concern for some of his superiors not being on the same page as he was but he felt he was moving them in the right direction.

“The County Board of Education (CBE) Technology Plan’s updates and changes, including the vision, are discussed each fall during meetings with the school technology coordinators (1 per school) and the school technology cadre (3-10) per school, who share this information with their cohorts. In addition, the technology plan is posted to the county’s website and the URL is provided to the superintendent, other central office staff and board members.

The county vision for technology integration in instruction that provides learning opportunities for students was ambiguous for a high number of respondents on another survey item. In survey question 19, which is referred to in Table 2 and discussed above, a high percentage of the respondents (45.4) rated the importance of technology to student learning as “somewhat” important, with the top rating in the survey item listed as “very important”.

In addition, the findings pertaining to Research Question 2 and conveyed by the following survey questions are displayed in Table 2 and are also reported in narrative form as follows:

Because principals work with teachers daily, they have a much greater chance to interject the use of technology. Data compiled from the teacher survey indicated that all faculty and staff in the targeted organization perceived the principal to be supportive of instructional technology. In response to survey question 17, “The principal in my building is supportive of instructional technology”, (100%) of the respondents indicated they “strongly agreed”. Teachers also responded positively to survey question 18, “The principal in my building is knowledgeable about instructional technology. All (100%) agreed with the statement.

The county’s vision for integrating technology and instruction was examined in teacher survey questions. Teachers were asked in survey question 30, “In a classroom where technology is being used ideally to support instruction, what would you expect to see?” The response to this survey question indicated that the county vision for technology integration was ambiguous to the majority of the respondents. More than half of the respondents (62.6%) failed to articulate any of the county vision in their responses. References were made by the respondents to the augmented use of computers as routine as “paper and pencil” and also the comfortable use of computers by students and teachers were made in (15.3%) of the responses. The majority of respondents (56.8%) responded to the question by strongly requesting additional computers for every student and other resources such as web-cams, LCD projectors, touch-screen and e-beams.

In addition, the three teachers interviewed were asked in interview question 6, “What would make the challenge of integrating technology in your classroom easier to accomplish?” The following are the comments furnished by the respondents relevant to Research Question 2:

“Enough computers, electricity, desks…all the technical stuff”; “the number of computers available equal to the number of students in the class. In some of our classes the use of computers is not practicable due to the lack of materials available to them. Having the professional development or planning time to create the lessons and getting the lessons set-up and money.

The third research question was asked by the researcher to examine how prepared teachers in the target organization were to undertake the complexity of technology integration in instruction. The findings to Research Question 3 and responses conveyed to the survey questions are displayed in Table 3 and are also reported in narrative form as follows:

Information from the teacher survey indicated that the majority of teachers in the targeted organization were prepared and worked jointly with other teachers to embark on the complexity of technology integration. In response (84.9%) indicated that they “sometimes” or “regularly” worked in cooperation with other teachers to collaboratively come up with plans of instruction that involved the use of technology. However, only (15.1%) indicated that they worked collaboratively with other teachers “every week” planning instruction that involved the use of technology. In addition, the majority of the respondents in survey question 6 which asked, “Do you use cooperative learning in your lesson designs?” (91.9%) indicated that they “sometimes” and “regularly” worked cooperatively.

Professional development needs of the faculty and staff were concentrated on in question 8 which asked the respondents to estimate the number of hours of professional development they had participated in during the last 12 months in content specific instructional software; application tools; Internet/World Wide Web; and teaching methods for technology integration. Only (22.5%) of the respondents indicated that they had participated in professional development or training that focused on teaching methods in technology integration in instruction within the previous 12 months. In contrast, (42.3%) indicated that they received training in Application Tools; (52.3%) Internet; and (22.5%) reported participating in content specific instruction software professional development.

Survey question 9 asked, “How would you describe your level of skill in using computers for your own work?”  The respondents indicated they were competent in the area of technology operations and concepts. When asked to describe their level of skill in using computers for their own work, the majority of respondents (72.5.6%) that they “used computers routinely at home/work for multiple purposes”. Another (22.2%) rated themselves as “proficient in using 2 or more applications”. Only (10.2%) of the survey respondents characterized themselves as “beginner” and (3.70%) of the survey respondents characterized themselves as “very knowledgeable”. In response to a related question, survey question 12 asked, “Do you use computer technology to create instructional materials?” All (100%) of the respondents answered, “Yes.” In two related questions, Survey question 13 asked “Do you use computer technology for record keeping?” All (100%) answered “Yes”; and, survey question 14 asked, “Do you communicate via e mail to parents of the students you teach?”  All respondents or (100%)

The teachers were asked to rate their level of comfort with various areas of technology integration to examine the data on how prepared teachers were to undertake the complexity of technology integration. The respondents ratings included “little” “some” or “very comfortable” in Items 20 through 26 of the survey.

The respondents’ answers to survey question 20 indicated that the respondents’ did not feel comfortable in designing learning environments experiences that integrated technology in classroom instruction. Only (21.5%) of the respondents indicated that they were “comfortable”. More than half of the respondents (52.9%) indicated that they had “some experience” in designing student learning activities that integrated technology in classroom instruction.

Survey question 21 asked the teachers to rate their level of comfort in assessing student learning that results from the integration of technology in classroom instruction. Only (15.8%) of the respondents indicated that they were “comfortable”. More than half of the respondents (60.5%) indicated that they had “some experience” in designing student learning activities that integrated technology in classroom instruction; and, (23.7%) of the respondents indicated they had “little” experience.

Survey question 22 asked the teachers to identify how comfortable they were in identifying research related to the use of instructional technology in the curriculum.  More than half of the respondents (68.4%) indicated that they had “little” experience in identifying research related to technology integration in instruction and (15.8%) equally indicated that they had “some experience” and were comfortable in identifying research related to technology integration.

Survey question 23 asked the teachers to rate how comfortable they were in evaluating resources related to technology integration. Of the 37 respondents, (63.2%) indicated that they had “little” experience in evaluating resources related to technology integration. The other respondents indicated that they had “some” experience (23.7%) and, (13.1%) indicated that they were “comfortable”.

Survey question 24 asked the teachers to rate how comfortable they were with an awareness of ethics and computer security issues with emerging technologies in education.  Of the 37 respondents, (15.8%) indicated that they had “little” experience with ethics and computer security issues with emerging technologies in education. Approximately one-half of the respondents (52.6%) indicated that they were “comfortable and (31.6%) had “some” experience.

In survey question 25, the teachers were asked to rate their level of comfort in practicing teaching strategies that utilized facilitating and/or coaching skills. The respondents indicated that they had “little” experience (52.6%) and, 29.3%) of the respondents indicated they had “some” experience.   (18.1%) of the respondents indicated they were comfortable in practicing teaching strategies that utilized facilitating and/or coaching skills.

Survey question 26 asked the teachers to indicate their level of comfort in locating and using county technology resources that addressed Alabama proficiency

in technology. (78.9%) indicated either “little” or “some” in response to this question. Only (21.1%) were comfortable in locating and using county technology resources that addressed the state’s proficiency in technology.

The fourth research question was asked if more frequent and regular participation in regularly scheduled training and professional development would result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of teachers.

The fifth research question was asked about the perceived and reported deficiencies educators’ reported that hindered educators in their technological proficiency?

Consequently, many of the results in this category have been outlined in previous sections. The findings relevant to Research Questions 4 and 5 conveyed by the responses to the following survey are as follows:

Teachers were asked in survey question 15 to evaluate the quality of software applications available for students in the subject area you teach as “adequate” or “inadequate”. Out of 37 respondents to the question, a majority of the respondents (71.9%) indicated that the quality of software applications was “adequate” and, (28.1%) indicated that the quality of software applications was “inadequate”.

In survey questions 17 and 18 which relate to clarity of administrative support, a complete list of the responses to these survey items are included in the narrative and Table 2 under Research question 2 outlined above.

Faculty and staff professional development needs were also addressed in the interviews with the county technology coordinator and the targeted school technology coordinator (STC). The county technology coordinator reported that “the school technology coordinators (STCs) “provided daily on-site training and assistance to teachers in each school.” However, according to the interview with the targeted organization’s STC, “As school technology coordinator, I spend most of my time trouble shooting issues and putting in work orders to fix the problem when I cannot correct the situation”. The county technology coordinator also reported that “The County does not provide opportunities during the workday for technology training due to lack of funding and trained personnel. Also because of the pressure to meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, this county, like many other school districts in the state, is conscious of the need to have teachers in classrooms with students—thus fewer staff development activities are held.

Teachers were asked in survey question 28 to select the top three professional development training needs.

Teachers professional development needs were addressed using interviews with teacher representatives from each grade level. When asked in interview question 6, “What might make the challenge of integrating technology in your classroom easier to accomplish?” All respondents answered “computers for all students,” “Smart boards in every classroom and, “enough time for training in technology integration in each subject area”.

Maddin (2002) (citing The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards for Staff Development, 2001) recommended that the “majority of educators’ professional learning should occur during the day in collaboration with colleagues”; however, it also recognized the importance of gaining knowledge from outside sources by “attending workshops and state and national conferences” (p. 12).            According to the interview with the county technology coordinator, the target organization’s professional development needs were met with peer collaboration, modeling, and mentoring on-site for co-workers. However, the county coordinator reported that these support needs were provided by school technology coordinators. (STCs)  These positions were not funded full time, and the individuals also had full time teaching responsibilities. Teachers’ professional development in the targeted organization was inadequate during the work day. The teachers were not given ample time to collaborate with other teachers.

Based on the findings of the gap analysis, recommendations were made for the improvement of educational technology in the classroom, thereby, improving teacher professional development and student achievement. The findings were reported to the county superintendent and the administration.

 Chapter 5: Discussion

The integration of technology into any school is similar to integration into any business setting; technology is an instrument to improve productivity and practice and application.  Technology integration in the classroom also has the potential to support important educational goals and objectives of the cyber world today.  The goal of this evaluation research study was to determine the level of effectiveness of faculty and staff technology integration efforts in instruction in the target organization and to suggest recommendations for continuous improvement in faculty and staff professional development based on the findings. It is essential that educational leaders provide professional development methods for integrating technology into the everyday activities of the classroom, in order to meet the educational needs of students enrolled in the twenty-first century classroom. It is vitally important that our technological venue will meet the national goal of raising the level of digital inclusion.

The results of this study will be used for the continuous improvement in faculty and staff professional development and to initiate any changes needed for improving educational technology integration in instruction in the elementary school setting. This improvement in professional development will enable teachers to become and remain proficient in the ability to ascertain, procure usage, and evaluate appropriate technology to enhance and support curriculum and instruction.

Conclusions and Recommendations by Research Questions

The predominant focus of this study was to examine instructional technology integration in terms of the Duration Integrity Commitment Effort. (DICE) However, these change factors do not function independently but rather depend on each other to form a system of variables that intertwine to determine accomplishment or failure An analysis of the data was presented according to each research question which also encompassed DICE

The first research question created a picture of the teachers’ perception of technology in instruction as a priority need. The results from the teacher survey and interviews with educational leaders and teachers showed that the respondents did recognize the importance of technology integration as a priority need.  Also the majority of teachers perceived technology to be important to student learning. The amount of time teachers spent in planning for the integration of technology in instruction provided additional information about a need. The majority of the respondents reported spending a great amount of time planning for technology use and in collaborating with other teachers to plan instruction that involved the routine use of technology.

The data collected from this study indicated that the county technology coordinator perceived technology integration to be a high priority need. However, he also felt need must be present for school and county leaders to make it happen. Teachers will not have the support for implementation unless county and school leaders share the need.

Although data from the teacher survey indicated that 100% of the faculty and staff perceived the principal to be supportive of instructional technology, this finding is inconclusive because the principal was not surveyed directly. Further research is needed to understand the degree of importance principal’s place on integrating technology in instruction and how the principal’s felt need influences the success of the educational technological change.

The second research question was asked to reveal the reactions of faculty members in the targeted school on participating in technology professional development programs. The teachers failed to articulate the seamless integration of technology in the responses to the teacher survey. The majority of the teachers also strongly requested additional computers for every student as routine as pencil and paper.

The county’s vision for technology integration in instruction to provide learning opportunities for students was unclear for a many of faculty and staff. More than half of the faculty and staff when asked about what a classroom would look like that integrated technology to support instruction, failed to articulate any of the county vision in their responses. The three teachers interviewed also indicated strongly that in order for there to be learning opportunities for all students in technology money, professional development and computers were needed. This indicated that the teachers would be able to integrate technology in classroom instruction more frequently if there was in fact more computer accessibility per student.

The third research question was asked by the researcher to what extent the teachers were integrating technology into their lessons. The data obtained from the survey questions in this category indicated that the majority of teachers in the target organization were not competent in the area of technology operations and concepts. Few teachers indicated that they were competent in integrating technology into their lessons. Also a majority of the respondents indicated that they collaborated with one another to integrate technology into their classroom instruction; used cooperative learning in their lessons designs; and used the computer routinely in their own work.  However, holistically, the participants in this study did not feel well prepared to plan and design learning venues and experiences that integrated technology in instruction.

The data obtained from the fourth research question was examined to find out if more frequent and regular participation in regularly scheduled training and professional development result in feelings of greater competency in technology on the part of the faculty and staff. The results indicated that there was a general need for more time for professional development and training in integrating technology in the teachers’ subject or content area. The quality of the technology integration in instruction was inadequate because the amount of county support as far as time for professional development and training was not allocated. The faculty and staff professional development needs were addressed in several survey questions and the results indicated that the professional development needs related to teaching, learning, and the core curriculum were not met according to content specific instructional software. The teachers had not participated in professional development or training within the preceding 18 months. The faculty and staff felt they would be more comfortable and competent if they had more regularly scheduled training and professional development.

The data obtained from the fifth research question was to find out what were the perceived and reported deficiencies educators’ reported that hindered educators in their technological proficiency?  The faculty and staff  rating on their level of comfort with various areas of technology integration indicated that the majority of the teachers felt these were areas of deficiencies that hindered them in becoming comfortable in integrating technology. In particular the data obtained from the survey questions in this category indicated that the teachers’ were not comfortable in designing, assessing, identifying, and evaluating technology resources and learning goals to ensure that they were properly or adequately delivering technology proficiently.

Summary of the Results

According to the interview with the county technology coordinator, the school county has only one technology coordinator to address the technology staff development needs of 450 teachers and administrators. Teachers were not well aware of the county’s plans to integrate technology in the curriculum. Currently, the teachers are not fully utilizing the use of technology within their lesson plans, and this is a result of little experience and no training available. Many of the teachers believe that with adequate training in certain aspects of technology, they would be more comfortable in using technology as a medium of instruction in the classroom. In addition, few teachers in the targeted school had time outside the regular school day to fit technology into their schedule. Therefore, the faculty and staff who engaged in this study had professional development needs that were not met. More research is needed to address strategies that would provide the much needed professional development support for faculty and staff in the integration of technology in the classroom.

Recommendations for the district

County administrators and the faculty and staff who were a part of this evaluative study recognized the significance of technology integration in instruction as being a high precedence need. However, a substantial number of teachers and county administrators identified major barriers to integrating technology in instruction. Training, time, and access were identified as the predominant barriers to the effectiveness of technology integration in the target organization.

Hughes (citing Riley, Holleman & Roberts, 2000) reported that increasing the effectiveness of technology-supported content area teaching is a national goal. The

analyzed data from the faculty and staff survey, classroom observations, and interviews indicated stalwartly that this goal had not been reached in the targeted organization. Among faculty and staff in the targeted organization, it is recommended that more specific training is needed within the teachers’ educational environment and specific content areas where needed. Most specifically in basic computer use, multimedia, designing projects for the World Wide Web and in using e-mails. Also, teachers believe that there is a need for more awareness of resources and research for assistive devices in facilitating to children with special needs as well as ESL students. Collaborative, subject specific technology inquiry groups may be a professional development approach that supports teachers’ ability to learn to integrate technology into their subject areas as indicted by Hughes (2005).

Recommendations for future research

It is recommended that the target organization develop inquisition groups of teachers of similar content areas and grade levels. These inquisition groups can coalesced the knowledge of the curricular goals and objectives, specific school, or county professional development goals to identify problems of practice or other subject-matter related topics to guide the learning of educational technology integration as possible solutions. This recommendation would improve the effectiveness of technology-supported curricular teaching within the target organization and as a result increase student learning.

Limitations and Delimitations

This evaluation study was limited to a rural elementary school in a county located in a southern state bordering the Gulf of Mexico and may not be generalized to other institutions. Participants of the study were limited to faculty and staff serving students in grades kindergarten through 5; this condition may limit the ability to simplify beyond this population.

Summary

The clarity of vision for technology integration in instruction was vague to the teachers’ because the county failed to support teachers in providing enough professional development and computers. It is recommended that greater financial expenditures need to be made by the county to support technology integration and professional development through additional purchases of computer hardware, software and training.

Since eminence and expediency of educational technology integration and usage in instruction was insufficient in the targeted organization, it is suggested that there be more time allocated for joint planning and collaboration between county administrators and faculty and staff. This would allow for a greater prominence on communication between the county administrators and faculty and staff regarding the county’s vision of technology integration and usage to help faculty and staff feel more comfortable in preparing technological enhanced learning opportunities for all.

References

Alabama State Department of Education. (2002). Alabama impact, 2002-2005 (Bulletin 2002, No. 50). Montgomery, AL: Author.

?nd?r??n, L. (2004). ???hn?l?gy planning at the state, di?tri?t, and l??al l?v?l?. N?w York: Open University Pr???.

?nd?r??n, W. (2005). That’s not a drinking fountain, or how t? survive in a ?n?-??mput?r ?la??r??m

Archer, J. (2000), Technology and learning Jossey-Bass.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546.

Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Journal of Computers & Education, 39, 395-414.

Bell, R., & Hofer, M. (2003). The Curry School of Education and long-term commitment to technology integration [Online serial]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3.

Bell, R., and Ramirez, R. (2004). Ensuring equitable u?? of  ?du?ati?n t??hn?l?gy.

Bolick, C., Berson, M., Coutts, C., & Heinecke, W. (2003). Technology applications in social studies teacher education: A survey of social studies methods faculty. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.

Br?dy, P. (2003). T??hn?l?gy planning and management handb??k: ? guide for ??h??l di?tri?t ?du?ati?nal t??hn?l?gy l?ad?r?. N?w J?r??y: ?du?ati?nal T??hn?l?gy Publi?h?r?.

Brooks, S. (2000). Taking the lead. Technology and Learning, 21, 26-34.

Byers, J., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104, 482-515.

Byr?m, E. (2003). Fa?t?r? that aff??t the ?ff??tiv? u?? of t??hn?l?gy for t?a?hing and learning. N?w York: ?du?ati?n Journal.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2008, June). School technology and readiness Report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century. Washington, DC: CEO Forum.

Cliff?rd, W. (2003). Updating t?a?h?r?’ t??hn?l?gy skills. Momentum, 29(3), 34-36.

Conner, D. R. (2003). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard Books. 

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.

Cross, R., Davenport, T. H., & Cantrell, S. (2003). The social side of performance. Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 20-22.

Dyche, J. (2002). The CRM handbook. Boston: Addison-Wesley Pearson Education.

Edmondson, A. (2003). What styles of computer training enhance teachers’ competence and confidence to use ICT?

Edyburn, D. L., & Gardner, J. E. (2000). Integrating technology to support effective instruction. Technology and Exceptional Individuals

Fallows, S., & Bhanot, R. (2002). Educational development through information and communications technology. London: Kogan Page.

Felix, K. (2000). New watch: Multimedia schools.

Ficklen, E., & Muscara, C. (2001, Fall). Harnessing technology in the classroom. American Educator.

Fulton, K. (2003). A framework for considering technology’s effectiveness.

Goodman, P.S., (2001). Technology enhanced learning: opportunities for change. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gordon, T. (2003) Teacher effectiveness training: The program proven to help teachers bring out the best in students of all ages. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Gray, L. (2002). The impact of NOF in the use of computers in the classroom. Computers & Education, 43, 63-79.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Hammer, M. (2003). The agenda (chap. 4).

H?lum, ?., and Gahala, J. (2005). Using t??hn?l?gy t? ?nhan?? literacy in?tru?ti?n. N?w York: Pathways

International society for technology in education. (2010). Eugene OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Jacobsen, D. M. (2002, April). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What we know and how we know it, the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Jones, J., Aguirre, D., & Calderone, M., & (2004, April 15). 10 principles of change management. Resilience Report.

Kosakowski, J. (2000). The benefits of information technology (ERIC Digest). Educational Media & Technology Yearbook, 25, 53-56. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ605274)

Kruse, D. (2003). Research evidence on prevalence and effects of employee ownership: Testimony before the subcommittee on employer-employee relations.

Kulik, J. A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology (InfoBrief, NSF 03-301). Washington, DC : National Science Foundation.

Laird, D., Holton, E. F., III, & Naquin, S. S. (2000). Approaches to training and development. Redding, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Maddin, E. A. (2002). Factors that influence technology integration in elementary instruction (UMI No. AAT 3062430)

McNamara, C. (2006). What is culture? Organizational culture.

Meltzer, S. (2006). Preparing for the technological classroom of the 21st century. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23, 289-292.

Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas J., & Wise, P. (2000). Real time: Computers, change and schooling. Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy: Canberra, New South Wales, Australia: Macmillan.

Merrill, C. (2004). Action research and technology education. Technology Teacher, 63(8), 6-8.

More, M. (2001). Taking advantage of technological acceleration.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2003). Summary data on teacher effectiveness, teacher quality, and teacher qualifications. Washington, DC: Author.

National Study of School Evaluation. (2006). Technology survey.

New York State Education Department. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology.

Newby, T., Stepich, D., & Russell, J. (2005). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., Bebell, D., Seeley, K. (2004). Examining the relationship between home and school computer use and students’ English/language arts test scores. Boston: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.

Owston, R. D. (2001). Lessons learned. Three case studies of ICT in teaching and their implication for practice

 Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Maldin, MA: Blackwell.

R?drigu?z, G., and Knuth, R. (2006). Providing pr?f???i?nal d?v?l?pm?nt for ?ff??tiv? t??hn?l?gy u??.

Rothwell, W. (2000). ASTD model for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs: American society for training and development: Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publishing.

Shelley, G., Cashman, T., Gunter, R., & Gunter, G. (2004). Integrating technology in the classroom. Boston: Thomson.

Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 10, 2-11.

Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin. Groups, experiential learning and action research. The encyclopedia of informal education.

Solmon, L., & Wiederhorn, J. (2000, May). Progress of technology in the schools: 1999 report. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation

Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Smart induction programs become lifelines for the beginning teacher. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 10-17.

Teacher Training Agency. (2002). The new opportunities fund training for teachers and school librarians in the use of ICT: Progress review and lessons learned through the central quality assurance process in England. London: Author.

Teclehaimanot, B. (2006). A descriptive study of technology use in an urban setting: Implications for schools change [Abstract]. Society for information technology & Teacher education 17th International Conference, 2006, (2), 1837-1844.  

Teclehaimanot, B., & Czerniak, C. (2005). Technology use in schools: What teachers are saying? Michigan Middle School Journal, 29(2), 15-22.

Tenbusch, J. P. (2002). Keeping students honest in electronic age. Online electronic school.

Trochim, W. (2002). Introduction to evaluation.

Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in Education. Washington, DC: infoDev / World Bank.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, & National Telecommunications and Information Administration, (2008).

Valdez, G. (2005). Critical issue: Technology: A catal for teaching and learning in the classroom. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.