An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

An Action Plan for the

New Castle County Vocational Technical School District

To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

Monica D.T. Rysavy

Wilmington University

UMI Number: 3332697

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMI
UMI Microform 3332697
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

An Action Plan for the

New Castle County Vocational Technical School District

To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

by

Monica D.T. Rysavy

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic

and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for

the degree of Doctor of Education in Innovation and Leadership.

Signed : (y?Q^t^jZ* "7%? , C&AZ^K?

Pamela M. Curtiss, Ph.D., Chairperson of Dissertation Committee

Signed: i^j. /• <QA—
Lewis L Atkinson III, Ed.D., Member of Dissertation Committee

Signed: <§s&Ut/* /ffp/^j^jS*?

Bonnie Meszaros, Ph.D., Member of Dissertation Committee

Signed:

Betty J. Caffo, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

ii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my mother, Dr. Margaret R. Prouse, whose encouragement

never wavered and whose proofreading ability is without equal.

iii

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge all of the many contributions of the survey participants in this

study. In particular, I would like to thank the teachers at St. Georges Technical High

School who participated in the pilot program.

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter

I. Introduction 1

Purpose of the Study 2

Need for the Study 3

Educational Technology: A Brief History 4

II. Review of the Literature 15

Technology Standards for Teachers, Administrators, and Students 15

Educational Technology Integration Professional Development in the U.S 17

Technology Use by Teachers in the United States and Delaware 22

Planning for Educational Technology 23

Teachers Incentives for Technology Training 25

Technology Training Methods 27

Barriers to teachers' use of technology 28

Resources 29

Institutional and Administrative Support 30

v

Training and Experience 30

Attitudinal or Personality Factors 30

Internet Connectivity Nationwide and in Delaware Schools 31

Technology Integration Professional Development in NCCVT 33

Level of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi) 35

III. Technology Professional Development Plan 50

Technology Professional Development Pilot Program Description 50

Pilot Program Week 1 53






Summary of the Pilot Program Experience 57

Pilot Program Evaluation 58

Pre-Pilot Program Survey Results 58

Post-Pilot Program Survey Results 62

Pilot Program Conclusions 66

Technology Professional Development Plan 71

Groups to Participate in the STARS Program 71

Employment Needs 72

vi

Train the Trainer Model 73

Methods and Timeline of Delivery 74

STARS Program Topics 74

Evaluating the STARS Program 76

Summary of STARS Program 77

Works Cited 78

Appendix

A. Podcasting Workshop Flyer 85

B. LoTi Survey 86

C. Podcasting Workshop Week 1 89

D. Podcasting Workshop Disclosure Pre Survey 92

E. Podcasting Workshop Article 93

F. Podcasting Workshop Discussion Board 94

G. Podcasting Workshop Lesson Plan Template 95

H. Podcasting Workshop Directions for Setting up Blackboard Course 97

I. 2008 International Society for Technology in Education Standards for

Teachers 105

J. Basic Technology Educational Needs Survey 107

vn

List of Figures

Figure

1. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 LoTi Results 39

2. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 PCU Results 40

3. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 CIP Results 41

4. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 LoTi Results 43

5. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 PCU Results 44

6. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 CIP Results 45

7. Pre-Pilot LoTi Results 59

8. Pre-Pilot PCU Results 60

9. Pre-Pilot CIP Results 62

10. Post-Pilot LoTi Results 63

11. Post-Pilot PCU Results 64

12. Post-Pilot CIP Results 66

13. Comparison of Participants' Pre and Post-Pilot LoTi Results 67

14. Comparison of Participants' Pre and Post-Pilot PCU Results 69

15. Comparison of Participants' Pre and Post-Pilot CIP Results 70

Vlll

Abstract

The New Castle County Vocational Technical School District (NCCVT) is

comprised of four high schools throughout New Castle County - Delcastle Technical

High School, Howard Technical High School, Paul M. Hodgson Vocational

Technical High School, and St. Georges Technical High School. The NCCVT

School District is one of three vocational technical school districts in the State of

Delaware.

Recent trends in the K-12 educational arena promote increasing technology

integration in schools. The Delaware Center for Educational Technology has adopted

Dr. Christopher Moersch's Level of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi)

Survey as its accepted tool for analyzing to what extent K-12 educators are

integrating technology in Delaware schools.

This executive position paper examines ex post facto data from LoTi Surveys

taken in the NCCVT School district during the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 school

years. Survey data were accessed through the secure LoTi Lounge web site. This

paper also examines LoTi Survey data collected from a six-week pilot program

conducted by this researcher. The program involved pre and post LoTi testing and

was taken by 14 staff members at St. Georges Technical High School. The

objective of this paper is to determine if a hybrid model of technology professional

development, to include face-to-face and online learning through Blackboard, is an

effective method of increasing staff members LoTi scores.

The findings of this study demonstrate an increase in the pilot program's LoTi

scores when compared to the Pre-Pilot program LoTi survey. The Mode LoTi score

increased from the Pre-Survey, where participants scored a LoTi Level 1, to the Post-

Survey, where participants scored a LoTi Level 3.

x

Chapter I

Introduction

There is a lack of literature on improving teachers' integration of technology,

also known as instructional technology, into the classroom in vocational technical

high schools. This executive position paper will propose methods of improving

teachers' technology integration skills through a sustained professional development

action plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District

(NCCVT).

It is helpful to define the concept of instructional technology as it applies to

this population. Heinich, et al. adapted John Kenneth Galbraith's definition of

technology, applying it to instruction, and defined instructional technology "as the

application of our scientific knowledge about human learning to the practical tasks of

teaching and learning" (as cited in Saettler, 2004, p. 5).

The Commission on Instructional Technology (as cited in Saettler, 2004)

defined instructional technology as "the media born of the communication revolution

which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook, and

blackboard" (p. 6).

New Castle County Vocational Technical School District teachers' technology

integration skills have been identified as lacking through data collected from

confidential responses to the online Level of Technology Implementation Framework

surveys (LoTi) that were administered in the District during 2004 and 2007. The

purpose of administering this online survey to staff was to accurately measure

1

2

authentic classroom technology use in the District (National Business

Education Association [NBEA], LoTi Framework, 2006).Data collected from the

2004 LoTi survey indicate that:

• The median LoTi level of the NCCVT School district is Level 2 (Exploration)

on a scale of 0-6

• The majority of the NCCVT staff members, 25% or 46 people, scored at a

LoTi level 0

Data collected from the 2007 LoTi survey indicate that:

• The median LoTi level of the NCCVT School district is Level 3 (Infusion) on

a scale

of 0-6

• Almost half of the NCCVT staff, 48 percent, scored a LoTi level of 0,1, or

2 (LoTi Lounge)

Overall, the data collected from the 2004 and 2007 LoTi Surveys suggests that

in order to recognize a dramatic gain in LoTi levels, the District must investigate

alternate methods of professional development.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to analyze the LoTi data from surveys conducted

in 2004 and 2007, as well as to assess additional LoTi survey data results from the

spring 2008 pilot program conducted by the researcher to determine what technology

integration skills NCCVT teachers are most lacking, and then to propose a

3

professional development plan to meet the technology integration needs of NCCVT

teachers. The assessment goal for the technology professional development plan will

be to increase the LoTi scores for staff in the NCCVT school district.

Over the past three years, all technology professional development offerings

have been planned to improve LoTi scores. However, those offerings focused on

software training and not the integration of technology into the classroom. As the

LoTi Survey assesses the "use of

technology as a tool within the context of student based instruction with a constant

emphasis on higher order thinking" (NBEA, LoTi Framework, 2006, p. 1), it is the

researcher's belief that the district will not recognize a dramatic increase in the staff's

LoTi levels until the technology professional development offerings are aligned with

the goals of the LoTi Survey.

Need for the Study

The need for this paper is driven by the 2004 and 2007 LoTi Survey results

that were conducted in the NCCVT School District. The 2007 study indicated that all

staff would benefit from additional technology integration training because almost

half of the NCCVT staff, 48 percent, scored a LoTi level of 0,1, or 2, on a scale of 0-

6 (LoTi Lounge). In addition, the study indicated that 48 percent of staff members

were in need of additional technology integration training to increase their skills to

the average level of 3 (LoTi Lounge).

4

The need for this paper is also driven by the 2008 pilot technology program

conducted by the researcher. The program was designed to meet teachers' technology

needs as assessed by the 2004 and 2007 LoTi surveys in an online professional

development program utilizing the Blackboard course management system.

Educational Technology: A Brief History

It is generally held by the education community that technology integration is

a relatively new practice. That is not entirely accurate. While the methods teachers

can use today to integrate technology are certainly different as opposed to in the early

1900s, research shows that teachers have been using various modes of technology

support in their instruction since that time (Betrus & Molenda, 2002).

According to Paul Saettler (2004), the term 'educational technology' can be

"traced back to the time when tribal priests systematized bodies of knowledge and

early cultures invented pictographs or sign writing to record and transmit

information" (p. xi).

The term 'visual instruction' in education was first used in the early 1900s.

The Department of Visual Instruction (D VI), a division of the National Education

Association (NEA), was established in 1923. The purpose for the formation of this

division was to research the potential of visual media—particularly slides and motion

pictures—in schools, colleges, and university extension divisions. Harry Bruce

Wilson, Superintendent of Schools, Berkeley, CA was named as the first president.

Two other organizations outside the NEA, the National Academy of Visual

Instruction (NAVI) and the Visual Instruction Association of America (VIAA), which

5

started between 1916 and 1922, were already working to give voice to the movement

of Visual Instruction (Association for Educational Communications and Technology

[AECT], 2001).

DVI had very minimal financial resources during the 1920s. Despite this,

they were able to claim a number of accomplishments, including help with job

placement for its members, as well as solidifying the support behind the use of the

term "visual instruction" as the name for the field (AECT, 2001).

As the United States entered the Great Depression in 1932, it became

impossible to financially sustain three separate organizations focused on Visual

Instruction. After several rounds of negotiation, all were merged into one new

organization, maintaining the DVI name. During the 1930s, membership grew from

just over 100 individuals, to over 600 members (AECT, 2001).

Training of pre-service teachers in Visual Instruction began during the 1930s

as well. The DVI also helped to assist in-service teachers to begin integrating new

media into their lessons. The most popular topics in visual instruction courses in

1932 (AECT, Consolidation Period, 2001) were:

• philosophy and psychology of visual instruction

• motion pictures

• lantern slides

• projector operation

• stereographs

• photographs

6

• exhibits

• field trips (p. 1)

During this time period, DVI members had more debates regarding

technology pedagogy issues. One of the major issues was regarding the use of new

technology to record sound to create new sound technology films in place of the

previously used silent films. Part of the organization's members felt that there was a

major "value of teachers' adding their own narration to the film during the

presentation as it was shown". They felt that this "not only personalized the film for

the specific audience but also integrated the teacher into the presentation" (p. 3).

While this issue was strongly debated at several conventions in 1936, eventually the

"talkies" won out (AECT, Consolidation Period, 2001).

The Department of Visual Instruction also worked to lobby the U.S.

Government towards reserving a band of the radio spectrum for non-commercial

broadcasting. The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934, responded

with a set of reservations in 1938 and another in 1945. "DVI was not a leading force

in the radio arena as few of its members had a primary affiliation with broadcasting.

Their responsibilities began at the point teachers or professors actually used radio

programs in the classroom" (AECT, Consolidation Period, 2001, p. 3).

Towards the end of the 1930s, as their scope began to spread beyond visual

media, terminology began to be an issue for the organization. By 1937, the term

"visual instruction" was becoming obsolete as radio and other audio sources became

7

more available. The term "audio-visual" prevailed by the mid-1940s (AECT,

Consolidation Period, 2001, p. 3).

Between 1946 and 1957, DVI experienced massive growth. As World War II

ended, many audio-visual trained men and women returned home and joined the

organization. This removed one of the largest barriers to increasing the use of audio-

visual technologies in schools, as their presence advanced the pace of change. Within

a year after the war, membership had increased, to over 1,000 (AECT, 2001).

In 1947, a new constitution was adopted by the organization and its name was

changed from DVI to the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction or DAVI. Teacher

education remained a major focus of the organization. The most popular topics in

introductory educational media courses in 1947 (AECT, Post-War Growth Period,

2001) were:

• selection and utilization principles

• equipment operation

• evaluation of materials

• history and philosophy of educational media

• production of audio-visual materials (photo, non-photographic visuals, radio,

and video).(p. 8)

In 1951, another constitution was drafted, "with the primary intent of making

the organizational structure more efficient (p. 7)." Part of this new constitution

encouraged the creation of Department of Audio-Visual Instruction (DAVI)

8

subgroups in all the states. Membership continued to grow and reached 3,000 in 1955

(AECT, Post-War Growth Period, 2001,).

National school construction increased as the baby boomer children entered

elementary school. These new schools were much more modern than previous

schools. Classrooms were now "being outfitted with electrical outlets at the front and

back, permanently mounted projection screens, and shades or blinds for room

darkening" (AECT, Post-War Growth Period, 2001, p. 7). With this new hardware

and materials brought a demand for technical and pedagogical support, which was

provided by the building and district audio-visual coordinator. These additional

positions further increased membership in DAVI.

Teacher education continued to be a strong focus for DAVI. The most

popular topics in introductory educational media courses in 1957 (AECT, Post-War

Growth Period, 2001) were:


• equipment selection

• equipment utilization



• production of audio-visual materials (photo, non-photographic visuals, radio,

and video).(p. 3)

Between 1958 and 1970, the federal government began taking a major interest

in the education of its youth for the first time. This was as a result of the creation of

9

Sputnik I by the Soviets in 1957. "The achievement of this technological marvel by a

nation other than the U.S. led political leaders to conclude that there must be a 'brain

gap' that needed to be filled" (AECT, Federal Aid Boom Period, 2001, p.l). This

resulted in the passing of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 which

provided funding for equipment, materials, research, and college scholarships

intended to improve the nation's competence in math, science, and modern foreign

languages.

One of the most successful activities that were created as a result of the

NDEA was the Summer Media Institutes. During the summers of 1965 and 1966,

seventy-two institutes were held for educational media specialists, attended by over

2,700 participants (about 38 participants per institute). Fifty institutes were

considered 'basic' and provided entry level skills in preparation and use of media.

Twenty two institutes were considered 'advanced' and provided more advanced skills

to school personnel who already had basic media skills. The most direct impact of

these summer institutes was increased membership in DAVI. The organization saw

an increase of approximately 1500 members following these institutes (AECT,

National Defense Education Act, 2001, p.l).

With the advancement of technologies during the 1960s came new definitions.

DAVI formed the Commission on Definition and Terminology. The Commission

determined that the term "audiovisual communications" should be the central concept

of the field. They defined it as "that branch of educational theory and practice

10

primarily concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learning

process" (AECT, Federal Aid Boom Period, 2001, p. 4).

The most popular topics in introductory educational media courses in 1967

(AECT, Federal Aid Boom Period, 2001) were:

• utilization and selection of materials



• production of non-photographic materials

• communication theory


• audio production

• systems approach

• photographic production (p. 5)

In 1961, the DAVI became the Association for Educational Communications

and Technology (AECT) as a result of the reorganizations taking place at this time

within the NEA. With this new name, the organization was now independent of the

NEA, and was internally reorganized. By the middle of the 1970s AECT had nine

divisions (AECT, 2001):

• Educational Media Management

• Instructional Development

• Industrial Training and Education

• Information Systems

11

• International

• Media Design and Production

• Research and Theory

• Telecommunications (p. 1)

The later part of the 1960s saw the introduction of a new form of technology,

the audio cassette. Sales were too minimal to mention until 1973 when 89% of all

prerecorded audio was sold on cassettes. The videocassette player-recorder also

became a standard home appliance during the 1970s (AECT, 2001).

The position of audio visual director in elementary and secondary schools

began to decline at this time. This was, in part, a result of technological

advancement, but more so for economic reasons. Technological equipment became

lighter, more portable, and more reliable. Less physical strength and expertise was

required to transport and set up AV equipment. Economic factors were more

significant to this decline, however, because after the period of lavish federal support

for educational media in the 1960s came a major national recession in the early 1970s

that forced deep cuts in federal and state education funding (AECT, 2001).

Budget cuts forced schools to make staffing reduction decisions at the

building level and, when faced between keeping an AV Director or a School

Librarian, they were increasingly choosing to keep the librarian (required for

accreditation). At times the librarian's title was changed to "school media center

director" (AECT, Independence and Dispersion Period, 2001, p. 3). With this

change, administrators often focused just on the handling of equipment and materials,

12

not on the consulting role played by AV directors as they worked with teachers in

their classrooms to improve instruction" (p. 3). Membership in AECT decreased

during this time.

In 1972, AECT dropped the audiovisual label and fully embraced the

educational technology term. They adopted a new definition for their organization:

"Educational technology is a field involved in the facilitation of human learning

through the systematic identification, development, organization and utilization of a

full range of learning resources and through the management of these processes"

(AECT, Independence and Dispersion Period, 2001, p. 5).

In 1975, as part of a terminology handbook published by the organization, the

term educational technology was more clearly defined as "a complex, integrated

process, involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization, for analyzing

problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those

problems, involved in all aspects of human learning" (AECT, Independence and

Dispersion Period, 2001, p. 6).

During the 1970s, the most popular topics in introductory educational media

courses (AECT, Independence and Dispersion Period, 2001) were:


• utilization and selection of materials

• production of non-photographic materials


• audio production

13

• communication theory

• systems approach

• video production

• photographic production (p. 8)

In the 1980s, AECT experienced a major crisis. It had an ambitious agenda

and significant accomplishments but was struggling with a rather large overhead,

declining membership (from 11,000 in 1970 to 5,600 in 1980), reduced revenue and

declining attendance at their annual organization convention (AECT, 2001).

In hopes of improving their future, the board of directors chose not to renew

the contract of then current executive director, Howard Hitchens, placing Charles Van

Horn, the deputy executive director, in the position of acting association manager

while AECT searched for a new executive director. They also decided to no longer

run their own convention but to join the National Audiovisual Association (NAVA) at

its January 1983 convention in New Orleans, sharing NAVA's trade show,

COMMTEX International. Finally, the Board decided to reduce the organization's

staff in an effort to improve their cash flow problems (AECT, 2001).

The 1980s brought the beginning boom of the computer period. IBM

developed its first mass marketed personal computer and Time Magazine chose the

computer as its "Man of the Year." Apple introduced its Macintosh computer two

years later. From that point on, the educational technology field was dominated by

efforts to digitize everything audiovisual (AECT, Computer Impact and Downsizing

Period, 2001, p. 1).

14

In 1994, AECT adopted a new strategic plan, the Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.

During this time the organization also adopted yet another definition: "Instructional

Technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization,

management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning" (AECT,

Computer Impact and Downsizing Period, 2001, p. 5).

Toward the end of the 1990s, AECT was reorganized and broadened its scope

to attract more teachers, school and district media specialists, professors and graduate

students of instructional technology, corporate instructional designers, military

training designers, and multimedia developers as members. As the twentieth century

came to a close the AECT was altered from its original composition of school

administrators and school visual instruction coordinators, but it continued to help

people learn more efficiently and effectively through the use of the best technologies

available at the time (AECT, 2001).

Chapter II

Technology Standards for Teachers, Administrators, and Students

Since the 1990s, Departments of Education across the United States have been

establishing technology-related standards for teachers. As of 1999, twenty-two states

reported that they had in place, or were in the process of establishing, technology-

related standards for pre-service teachers (Lemke & Shaw, 1999). According to the

report, among those states with established requirements, "six report that the

requirements consist of technology-related coursework; three report that teachers

must demonstrate technology competencies to fulfill the requirement; and four

require students to complete technology-related coursework and to demonstrate

technology competencies to fulfill the requirement" (Lemke & Shaw, 1999, p. 9) . As

of this writing, Delaware does not currently have technology-related standards

requirements in order for pre-service teachers to receive their initial state license

(Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2007).

Overall, there has been an improvement in technology-related standards for

teachers and administrators since the 1999 report. There has been a major increase

from four to forty-five states indicating that they had technology-related standards for

practicing teachers, and from zero to thirty-six states reporting technology-related

standards for administrators.

In the 1999 Education Technology Policies of the 50 States Report (Lemke &

Shaw, 1999), researchers stated that thirty-six states had established technology-

15

16

related standards for students. At the time of the report's publication, nine were in the

process of developing technology-related standards for students.

According to the 1999 report, only nine states required high schools students

to demonstrate technology competency to graduate. Delaware was one of the nine and

it continues to require each high school student to successfully complete one credit in

computer literacy in order to graduate (Lemke & Shaw, 1999).

The 2007 State Technology Report, a supplement to the 10th edition of

Technology Counts, reported that 45 states including Delaware have technology-

related standards for teachers (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2007).

Although these technology-related standards exist on paper, they may not be required

for certification or recertification. In Delaware, an instructor is not required to

demonstrate proficiency in the standards to obtain a teaching certificate or to become

recertified to teach.

The report also states that 36 states have technology-related standards for

administrators. Delaware also has technology-related standards for administrators,

but does not include these standards in the administrator-certification or

recertification requirements.

The 2007 State Technology Report also noted that forty-eight states had

established technology-related standards for students. Despite this increase in states

establishing technology-related standards for students, only four states test students

specifically on these standards separately from a technology course. Delaware is not

one of them.

17

Overall, there has been an improvement in technology-related standards for

students since the 1999 report. There has been an increase from thirty-six to forty-

eight states indicating that they have technology-related standards for students

(Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2007).

Educational Technology Integration Professional Development in the United States

According to The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report,

professional development for teachers is defined as "an ongoing, long-term

commitment that begins with the decision to pursue a career in education and

continues, through a combination of formal and informal learning opportunities, for

the duration of a career" (The CEO Forum, 1999, p. 10). Over the past twenty years,

teachers' professional development has been consistently discussed in various

professional journals and articles and often highlighted in governmental reports as

being the "single most important step towards the infusion of technology into

education" (McMillian Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003, p. 12).

The Federal Office of Technology Assessment conducted a report series in

which they stressed the importance of expanding and improving professional

development opportunities for teachers seeking to improve their use of technology in

the classroom (McMillian Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003). "By the mid- to late

1990's, the reports increasingly emphasize the need for enhanced professional

development opportunities, incentives, state certification requirements, pre-service

curricula, and inservice programs (p. 13). The National Center for Education

18

Statistics (NCES) conducted a study in 2000 and found that approximately 20% of

teachers felt well prepared to integrate technology into classroom instruction (U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Despite the emphasis on stressing the importance of expanding and improving

technology professional development opportunities, statistically, few teachers seem to

be taking part in these activities. A study conducted by the Milken Exchange on

Education Technology in 1998 concluded that "teachers on average receive less than

13 hours of technology training per year, and 40% of all teachers have never received

any kind of technology training" (Carvin, 1999, p. 2).

In 2005, the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) employed by NCES,

surveyed teachers in public schools to find out if they had received professional

development focused on integrating the Internet into their curriculum. Of the public

schools survey, 83 percent with Internet access indicated that their school or school

district had offered professional development to teachers in their school. However,

only 36 percent of those schools surveyed had 76 percent or more of their teachers

attending those development opportunities. This means that while public schools

were apparently offering professional development sessions, a small number of

schools had a majority of their teachers attending the sessions (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2007).

Further data show that despite school administrator's indications that they are

offering technology training opportunities, they are not allocating the necessary funds

to support this training. According to the data collected in 2003-2004 by Quality

19

Education Data Inc. (Hayes & Grunwald, 2004) schools projected that they would

spend $9.30 per student on professional development and integrating technology into

the curriculum. In comparison, they projected that they would spend $68.44 per

student on instructional hardware, software, tech support, and connectivity. This

amount is much lower than the Department of Education's recommendation that

schools allocate at least 30 percent of their technology budgets to professional

development (The CEO Forum, 1999). Carvin (1999) stated, "Most schools on

national average dedicate no more than three percent of their technology budget" (p.

2)-

Technology funds for school districts by states have been increasing since

1995, according to the Education Policies of the 50 States report (Lemke & Shaw,

1999). In 1995, states appropriated nearly $13,148,428 for technology in K-12

districts, and in 1999, $29,776,405 was appropriated. These funds were appropriated

for all technology, not just technology professional development.

Delaware began allocating funds for K-12 Education Technology in 1996.

That first year, the state allocated $10,175,000 for all public school districts in the

state. In 1997 Delaware increased the allocation to $12,538,000. Delaware

significantly reduced its allocation to only $4,607,000 in 1998. No information is

provided as to why this reduction took place. In 1999, the Delaware allocation again

increased to $12,114,000 (Lemke & Shaw, 1999). Delaware's financial allocation for

public school districts in the state was less than half the nationwide allocation of

funds for K-12 Educational Technology in 1999.

20

Corporate America, on the other hand, understands that investing in

professional development with technology is instrumental to improving operations,

enhancing results, and ensuring better service. During 1996-1997, technology

training spending per person increased 74 percent for information services staff and

33 percent for business staff (The CEO Forum, 1999).

According to the September 1999 report, Survey of Technology in the Schools

(Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999), technology training is

primarily spent training teachers in:

• Computer Use

• Software Applications

• Internet Use

• Multimedia Peripherals

• Online Projects

• Using Distance Learning Equipment and Infrastructure

• Integrating Technology into Instruction

• Using e-mail

Nationwide, the report found that teachers received, on average, 12.4 hours of

technology training per year. The majority of that time, 7.3 hours, was devoted to

training in software applications. Slightly less time, 6.8 hours, was training in overall

computer usage, and 5.9 hours in training about integrating technology into the

classroom. Internet use training accounting for 5.8 hours, while multimedia

peripherals, online projects, and using e-mail all received 3.2 hours respectively. The

21

least amount of time, 1.2 hours, was focused on learning how to use distance learning

equipment and infrastructure. (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999).

As compared to nationwide statistics, Delaware teachers received less than the

average technology training for the year, only 8.7 hours. The majority of the training

for Delaware teachers was spent equally in software applications and overall

computer use, 5.4 hours each. Internet use training accounted for 4.3 of the hours,

while only 3.5 hours was spent learning how to integrate technology into the

classroom. Online projects, multimedia peripherals, and using e-mail all received less

than 2 hours training each, with 1.9,1.8, and 1.5 hours spent receiving training

respectively. The least amount of time, 0.2 hours, was spent learning how to use

distance learning equipment and infrastructure.

The same report also rated teachers' skill levels in using the technology that

they had received training for. Teachers were ranked by their district technology

coordinators on a scale of 1-5 in which 1 was "Beginner" and 5 was "Advanced"

(Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999, p. 13). Nationwide,

respondents who indicated a 4 or a 5 were as follows:

• Computer Use, 18.3%

• Software Applications, 13%

• Internet Use, 17%

• Multimedia Peripherals, 4.5%

• Online projects, 4%

• Using distance learning equipment and infrastructure, 3.1%

22

• Integrating Technology into instruction, 11.3%

• Using e-mail, 29.1%

Delaware teachers did not score well when ranked by their district technology

coordinators. With the exception of "Using e-mail", in which 15.5% of teachers were

ranked at a level 4 or 5, every other training category teachers were ranked between a

1 and 3 in terms of skill levels regarding the technology training they had received

(Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999, p. 13).

Technology Use by Teachers in the United States and Delaware

Nationwide, teachers are using technology in six main ways (Milken

Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999, p. 14):

• Administrative Work/Classroom Management (e.g. grade/attendance

recording)

• Communicating with Colleagues

• Accessing Experts

• Accessing Training

• Using simulations when teaching science

• Using desktop publishing to teach writing

According to the technology coordinators surveyed, the following percentages

of teachers ranked a 4 or 5 in how they use technology:

• Administrative Work/Classroom Management (e.g. grade/attendance

recording), 44.2%

23

• Communicating with Colleagues, 38.1%

• Accessing Experts, 8.4%

• Accessing Training, 5.6%

• Using simulations when teaching science, 11.4%

• Using desktop publishing to teach writing, 28.9%

In this category, Delaware teachers again did not rank highly by their district

technology coordinators. The "Communicating with Colleagues" use of technology

had the largest number of teachers ranked at a level 4 or 5, 48.6%. A close second

was the "Using desktop publishing to teach writing", with 43.9 percent of teachers

being ranked at a level 4 or 5. The last area in which teachers were ranked at a 4 or 5

was the "Administrative work/classroom management" area - 38.5%. According to

the district technology coordinators surveyed, Delaware teachers were not proficient

enough in any of the other technology uses (Using simulations when teaching

science, Accessing Training, Accessing Experts) to be ranked at a 4 or 5.

Planning for Educational Technology

Planning for Educational Technology is crucial to its success. Districts must

create a technology plan, track the technology training and use of technology by

teachers, and continuously evaluate technology use for improvement.

The majority of states, 90 percent, reported that they had officially adopted a

state technology plan in 1999. In addition, 68 percent of those states reported that

school districts were required to submit technology plans for state approval in order

24

to participate in state-funded educational technology initiatives (Lemke & Shaw,

1999). The average number of years covered by district technology plans is 4.1

(Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999). All school districts in

Delaware have a technology plan and the average number of years covered in the

technology plan is 3.9 (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999).

Part of planning for Educational Technology includes tracking the technology

training and use of technology by teachers that is currently taking place in school

districts. In the 1999 Survey of Technology in Schools (Milken Exchange on

Educational Technology, p. 15), technology coordinators were asked to what extent

their districts were tracking the technology training and use of technology by

teachers.

Nationwide, technology coordinators indicated that 95.8 percent of their

districts were tracking "what technology is available at the schools", 94.9 percent

were tracking "the location of the technology in the schools", 49.9 percent were

tracking "how teachers use technology", 54.6 percent were tracking "how students

use technology", and 70.2 percent were tracking "how much training in technology

your teachers receive".

In Delaware, technology coordinators responded that 100% of their districts

were tracking "what technology is available at the schools" and "the location of the

technology in the schools". They also indicated that Delaware districts were tracking

"how students use technology" at a slightly higher rate than nationwide - 57.1 percent

as compared to the nationwide tracking average of 54.6 percent. However, districts in

25

Delaware were tracking "how teachers use technology" and "how much training in

technology your teachers receive" at lower rates than nationwide - 42.9 percent for

each as compared to the nationwide tracking averages of 49.9 and 70.2 percent

respectively.

Once the technology plan is established, it is important for districts to

continuously evaluate technology use for improvement. On average, 51percent of

districts surveyed in the 1999 Survey of School Technology report, stated that they

evaluated the use of technology in their schools "yearly". Approximately one third,

29.3 percent, of districts indicated that they evaluated the use of technology "more

than once per year" and 16.4 percent indicated that they evaluated "less frequently

than yearly". Only 3.3 percent indicated that they "never" evaluated the technology

use in their districts (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, p. 16). In

Delaware, the majority of districts who responded indicated that the 57.1 percent

evaluated their technology use "yearly", which is slightly higher than the nationwide

average of 51 percent.

Teachers Incentives for Technology Training

According to the 1999 Survey of Technology in the Schools report, 64.4

percent of schools surveyed as compared to 94.6 percent in Delaware "provide

teachers with incentives for technological fluency and/or changing teaching methods

to take advantage of available technology" (Milken Exchange on Educational

Technology, 1999, p. 18). Incentives include the following:

26

• Salary Supplement

• Mentor teacher designation

• Participation in special workshops

• Release time

• Additional resources for their classroom

• Positive evaluations

• School or district recognition program

• Free or discounted computers for their own use

• Free software

• Travel and/or expenses paid for teachers who complete training

• Course credit toward certification

• Connection to the internet from home through school's network

In 1999, the most popular incentives for teachers nationwide for using

technology is "participation in special workshops", in which 84.2 percent of

technology coordinators surveyed indicated their districts offered. A close second

was "additional resources for their classroom" in which 72.2 percent of districts

indicated that this was available. The least popular incentive was the "connection to

the internet from home through school's network" - only 19.2 percent of districts

indicated that this was an offering to teachers incorporating technology (Milken

Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999, p. 18).

In Delaware, the most popular incentive for teachers using technology is

"participation in special workshops", with 81.3% of districts indicating that this was

27

offered. Delaware shares the least popular incentive with the nationwide statistics -

only 21.6% of districts indicated that a "connection to the internet from home

through school's network" was an incentive offered to teachers for using technology.

In addition, "travel and/or expenses are paid for teachers who complete training" and

a "salary supplement" also tied for the least likely incentives to be offered by districts

with 21.6 percent of districts indicating that this was an option (Milken Exchange on

Educational Technology, 1999, p. 18).

Technology Training Methods

"The traditional method of offering professional development has followed a

training paradigm centered on single events, delivered most often in the form of

short-term in-service sessions and workshops intended to teach discrete skills and

techniques" (Wells, Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology

Professional Development, 2007, p. 101). This approach has been questioned as not

being conducive to technology professional development because as educators begin

to experiment with what they learn, new questions will inevitably arise. Without a

system in place for addressing questions when they emerge, educators will be

unlikely to try new approaches. In order to be effective today, technology integration

professional development "must be based on a new mode of continuous improvement

linked to the program goals of the institution and the performance of teachers and

students in the classroom" (The CEO Forum, 1999, p. 12).

In general, there are two ways to provide professional development: on-site

training with a live instructor and web-based training that teachers can take online

28

from their computers. It is also possible to provide professional development that

combines both ways. Schools such as Moorhead Public Schools, in Moorhead, NH,

for example, combine both (Clapp, 2004).

Barriers to teachers' use of technology

According to a 1999 survey of public school teachers conducted by NCES

(Smerdon, Cronen, Lanahan, Anderson, Lannotti, & Angeles, 1999), teachers

reported the following as barriers to the use of computers and the Internet for

instruction:

• Not enough computers - 7 8 %

• Lack of release time for teachers to learn how to use computers or the Internet

-82%

• Lack of time in schedule for students to use computers in class - 80% (p. 3)

However, despite teachers in that survey indicating that there weren't enough

computers, 99% reported having computers available somewhere in their schools in

1999, and 84% reported having computers available in their classrooms (Smerdon,

Cronen, Lanahan, Anderson, Lannotti, & Angeles, 1999).

In terms of overall barriers, those impacting technology integration most,

according to Brinkerhoff (Effects of a Long-Duration, Professional Development

Academy on Technology Skills, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Technology Integration

Beliefs and Practices, 2006), can be grouped into four main categories:

• Resources

29

• Institutional and Administrative support

• Training and experience

• Attitudinal or personality factors.

Resources

Financial resources should be addressed in two areas regarding the integration

of technology: start-up costs and continuous funding. Without a significant

commitment of resources by the school district, it will be impossible for a technology

professional plan to be successful. Rodriguez & Knuth (Critical Issue: Providing

Professional Development for Effective Technology Use, 2000) indicated that the

district must "purchase the type of technical equipment necessary to meet the learning

goals identified and provide for ongoing maintenance and upgrading" (p.6). They

also argue that if a district goes the route of purchasing less than required in the

beginning that it will end up costing them more money later on because students and

teachers will end up wanting and needing access to additional technologies in the

future.

Continuous funding is crucial to the success of a technology integration plan

because technology costs are usually not one-time costs, instead they are ongoing

expenses. Rodriguez and Knuth (2000) recommend that districts adjust their funding

priorities to reflect the costs of using technology to improve teaching and learning as

a line item in their budgets.

30

Institutional and Administrative Support

Lack of support from those in major institutional and administrative roles can

potentially be a barrier to successfully integrating technology. Rodriguez and Knuth

(2000) state that administrators "must have a clear vision of technology to support

student learning and an understanding of the roles that all school staff must play to

achieve that vision" (p. 6).

Training and Experience

Research indicates that hands-on technology training and use is critical in

order for teachers to feel comfortable integrating technology in their classrooms.

Fatemi (1999) found that "teachers who received technology training in the past year

are more likely than teachers who hadn't to say they feel 'better prepared' to integrate

technology into their classroom lessons" (as cited in Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000, p.3).

Attitudinal or Personality Factors

Educators may have different points of view regarding how professional

development focused on technology use is important to the subject area they teach.

For example, educators may see the value of technology integration in technical areas

such as Math and Science, but fail to see the relevance in areas such as English,

History, and the Arts.

Educators may also be opposed to integrating technology in their classrooms

because they believe that it takes the focus away from student learning. They may

31

argue that "technology shifts the focus of schools from the content of the information

conveyed to the means of delivery (hardware, software, and networks) (Rodriguez &

Knuth, 2000, p. 12) .

In the 1999 Survey of Technology in Schools (Milken Exchange on

Educational Technology), district technology coordinators were asked to identify

their teachers' attitudes towards technology. They responded on a scale of 1 to 5 in

which one indicated that "they believe technology is just another fad being mandated

by those above them" and 5 is "a powerful tool for helping them improve student

learning". Nationwide, 61.7 percent of district technology coordinators indicated that

their teachers ranked a 4 or 5 on the scale. The percentage was lower in Delaware,

with only 30.5 percent of teachers ranking a 4 or 5. The state of Hawaii indicated that

all of their teachers ranked a 4 or 5.

Internet Connectivity Nationwide and in Delaware Schools

A major piece in ensuring that technology integration plans are successful

involves connectivity. Without a high speed connection in all classrooms, teachers

and students will not be able to access many of the multimedia tools they should learn

about. Internet access for schools as a whole has increased significantly since 1997.

In the Technology Counts 1997 report (Editorial Projects in Education Research

Center, 2007), researchers found that only about two-thirds of U.S. public schools had

Internet connections of any kind, and just 14 percent of those schools had access on

classroom computers. As of 2007, nearly all schools were connected to the Internet,

and most instructional computers had high-speed Internet connections.

32

At first glance, Internet connectivity would not appear to be a major issue for

Delaware schools. In the fall of 1998, the State announced (eSchool News, 1998) that

it was the first state in the nation to connect all of its public schools and classrooms to

the Internet. As a result of a project launched in February 1996 by the Delaware

Center for Educational Technology (DCET), more than 6,400 classrooms in 181

buildings with voice, video, data, and fiber optic lines were wired. This project gave

each classroom at least one data port connected to the internet through the Delaware

Education Network, a statewide intranet owned and operated by the State's Office of

Information Systems (eSchool News, 1998).

The project began as a result of funding from Delaware's 21 st Century Fund,

created from a major settlement Delaware won from New York State over securities

payments. $30 million was granted to DCET for the school wiring project (eSchool

News, 1998).

Delaware government officials strongly supported the project. Former

Secretary of Education Iris T. Metts was quoted in the article as saying "it is

imperative that we give our students every opportunity to be successful when their

academic careers have ended and their employment careers begin. Making internet

and multimedia technology available in every public school classroom will help us

ensure that every teacher and every student has access to these exciting and important

learning tools" (eSchool News, 1998, p. 2).

Nationwide, 3.8 students share access to each computer. Students' access to

instructional computers nationwide has been increasing since the report began

33

tracking in 2000, which means that students had more access to computers with less

sharing. However, in Delaware, access has been fluctuating since 2000, and the ratio

of students to computers has been increasing, which means that more students are

sharing computers, since 2004 (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center,

2007, p. 2).

Students' technology access when expressed as number of students who share

computers for instructional purposes is higher than the national average. According

to the 2007 State Technology Report (Editorial Projects in Education Research

Center), 5.2 students shared access to each computer across Delaware during the

2005-2006 school year. This number was slightly lower for high-poverty Districts,

with 3.7 students sharing access.

Technology Integration Professional Development in the NCCVT School District

In the NCCVT School District, all Professional Development opportunities

are offered through the Instructional Services Department, led by Shelley Rouser,

Director of Professional Development. Prior to the 2004-2005 school year, the

District did not have a way of assessing teachers' current abilities in terms of how

well they personally could use and integrate technology into their classrooms.

During the 2004-2005 school year, that changed with the introduction of the

Level of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi) survey. The LoTi survey

was administered to all district staff in 2004 and 2007. An online survey, results were

kept confidential for each survey respondent. At the end of each survey, respondents

34

were given a report that highlighted areas in which respondents were currently

excelling and areas in which they needed additional training and/or further study.

These reports were never formally discussed in the District.

In addition to the lack of marked improvement by the instructors during the

two-year interval based on the LoTi scores, another recent study further supports the

need for this proposal. Patricia Sine, Director of the Office of Educational

Technology at the University of Delaware, published a January 2007 report based

upon an audit she conducted regarding the District's use of technology in all

academic and technical areas (Sine, 2007). In the report, she recommended that the

District develop a strategic technology plan to include specific goals, a timeline, and

individuals with responsibility for reaching the goals. Sine conducted this audit at the

request of Dr. Deborah Zych, Assistant Superintendent of New Castle County Vo-

Tech (Sine, 2007).

This paper will pinpoint the specific areas of shortfall for District Staff

members and provide a customized program for overall improvement for all as

opposed to current software focused technology offerings. This paper will utilize

data from the LoTi surveys taken by the NCCVT School District Faculty in 2004-

2005 and 2006-2007. In addition, the results from this researcher's pilot program,

conducted in 2008, will be evaluated.

35

Level of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi)

The LoTi scale was developed by Dr. Christopher Moersch, Director and Co-

Founder of the National Business Education Alliance, in 1994 in an effort to

accurately measure authentic classroom technology use (NBEA, 2001, p. 1). This

scale focuses on

the use of technology as an interactive learning medium because this particular
component has the greatest and lasting impact on classroom pedagogy and is the
most difficult to implement and assess. The challenge is not merely to use
technology to achieve isolated tasks (e.g., word processing a research paper,
creating a multimedia slide show, browsing the Internet), but rather to integrate
technology in an exemplary manner that supports purposeful problem-solving,
performance-based assessment practices, and experiential learning—all vital
characteristics of the Target Technology level established by the CEO Forum on
Education and Technology (The CEO Forum, 1999).
The LoTi Survey considers two critical areas:

Current Instructional Practices (CIP): This area focuses on what methods teachers use

to deliver instruction (NBEA, 2006).

• How involved are the students in the classroom decision-making process?

• Do students help determine the problem being studied or have input in the

final product that is produced?

Personal Computer Use (PCU) (NBEA, 2006):

• How comfortable are the teachers in using the technology tools involved in

integration?"

36

The State of Delaware adopted the LoTi Survey as an assessment tool and reform

model in the fall of 2003. It is funded by the Delaware Center for Educational

Technology (DCET) and available to all Delaware Public and Charter schools

(NBEA, 2007).

According to DCET, the LoTi Survey should be taken by the following

individuals (Who should take the survey, 2007) in Delaware schools:

• Inservice Teachers: teachers that teach in a standard classroom setting

whereby they are directly providing instruction for students and are involved

in classroom curriculum decision-making.

• Building Administrators: school site administrators who are involved in the

curriculum decision-making process and/or technology acquisition process,

but do not have direct instructional contact with students.

• Media Specialists: technology-related site specialists who may be involved

instructionally with students, but whose primary functions include overseeing

purchases, maintenance, staff technology support, and/or training at the school

site.

• Instructional Specialists: teachers who are directly providing instruction for

students and may be involved in curriculum decision-making, but not

necessarily in a standard classroom setting. (2007, p. 1)

The NCCVT School District first administered the LoTi Survey in Spring

2005. Staff members responded to the survey by confidentially logging into the LoTi

Lounge website (http://www.lotilounge.com). Upon beginning the survey, faculty

37

members were informed that their questionnaires were specialized based on their job

responsibilities. Therefore, they selected the appropriate questionnaire from the

following job choices in a drop-down list:

• Delaware Media/Technology Specialist

• Delaware Building Administrator

• Delaware In-Service Teacher

• Instructional Specialist

After making their job selection, NCCVT staff members had the opportunity

to verify their profile information and make changes if necessary. After completing

the demographic information, staff members answered the LoTi Survey questions,

which took approximately 20 minutes to complete.

At the conclusion of the LoTi Survey, NCCVT staff members were presented

with their results. These results were divided into four categories:

• Personal Computer Use (PCU)

• Current Instructional Practices (CIP)

• LoTi Level (LoTi)

• Target LoTi Goal

Staff members then had the option to print their results. For the purpose of

anonymity, individual scores were provided online only to each participant

(Instructions for taking the survey, 2007). Districts were provided with aggregate

survey results through a secure online website. At their discretion, they could then

38

target areas of shortfall for consideration in future professional development

planning.

In the Spring of 2005,185 NCCVT Staff members completed the LoTi

Survey. The Survey measured three critical components related to supporting or

implementing the instructional use of computers in the NCCVT School District: LoTi

(Levels of Technology Implementation), PCU (Personal Computer Use), and CIP

(Current Instructional Practices). LoTi scores are ranked on a scale of 0-6, while

PCU and CIP scores are ranked on scales of 0-7.

Based upon these responses, the median LoTi level of the NCCVT School

district is Level 2 (Exploration) on a scale of 0-6. The Exploration level implies that

technology-based tools supplement the existing instructional program (e.g.,
tutorials, educational games, basic skill applications) or complement selected
multimedia and/or web-based projects (e.g., internet-based research papers,
informational multimedia presentations) at the knowledge/comprehension level.
The electronic technology is employed either as extension activities, enrichment
exercises, or technology-based tools and generally reinforces lower cognitive skill
development relating to the content under investigation (National Business
Education Alliance, LoTi Framework Level 2: Exploration, 2006, p. 1).

39

NCCVTSchool District 2004-2005 UTi Results

INuinbarofStaff
> Percent of total

Figure 1. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 LoTi Results (0-lowest/6-highest)
Figure 1 reflects that of the 185 staff members that took the 2004-2005

survey, the majority, 46 people or 25 percent, scored at a LoTi level 0 (Nonuse) (LoTi

Lounge).

The Nonuse level implies that there is (National Business Education Alliance,

LoTi Framework-Level 0: NonUse, 2006, p. 1)

a perceived lack of access to technology-based tools (e.g., computers) or a lack of
time to pursue electronic technology implementation. Existing technology is
predominately text-based (e.g., ditto sheets, chalkboard, overhead projector).
Data from the 2004-2005 Survey also provided insight to staff members' skill

levels with Personal Computer Use (PCU). PCU is defined as "teachers' comfort and

skill level with using a personal computer" (National Business Education Alliance,

40

PCU Framework, 2006, p. 1). PCU scores are ranked The median PCU score of

participants was Intensity Level 5 (Somewhat True of Me Now), on a scale of 0-7 (0-

lowest/6-highest).

NCCVTSchool District 2004-2005 PCU Results

m Hu mber cf Staff •
® Percent of totaf
&

Level 0 level X Level 2 Level 3 leve!4 LsvelS Leve<6 Level?
Mumtier of Staff 0 S 27 4S 36 33 23 12
Percfirit of total 08 3* 15* 26% 19% J8» 12% B%

Figure 2. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 PCU Results (0-lowest/6-highest)

Figure 2 reflects that of the 185 staff members who took the 2004-2005 LoTi

Survey, the majority of the staff members, 48 people or 26 percent, scored a PCU

Intensity Level 3, on a scale of 0-7 (0-lowest/6-highest).

A PCU Intensity Level 3 (NBEA, PCU Framework: Intensity Level 3)

indicates that

the participant demonstrates moderate skill level with using computers for
personal use. Participants at Intensity Level 3 may begin to become "regular"

41

users of selected applications such as the internet, email, or a word processor
program. They may also feel comfortable troubleshooting simple "technology"
problems such as rebooting a machine or hitting the "Back" button on an internet
browser, but rely on mostly technology support staff or others to assist them with
any troubleshooting issues (2006, p. 1).

The third area that the LoTi Survey assesses is staff members' Current

Instructional Practices (CIP) Intensity Level. The CIP Level "assesses classroom

teachers' current instructional practices relating to a subject-matter versus a learner-

based curriculum approach" (National Business Education Alliance, CIP Framework,

2006, p. 1). The median CIP score of NCCVT staff members according to the 2004-

2005 Survey was CIP Intensity Level 4, on a scale of 0-7 (0-lowest/6-highest).

NCCVTSchool District2004-2005 CIP Results
SG-f

» dumber of Staff
» Percentoftotai

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 LsvelS Level € Level 7
Number of Staff 3 6 17 2S 56 44 27 3

Percent •oftotai ZH 3% 9H 16* 30% Z4% IS* 2«

Figure 3. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 CIP Results (0-lowest/6-highest)

42


Survey, the majority of the staff members scored a CIP Level 4 A CIP Intensity Level

4 indicates that (National Business Education Alliance, CIP Framework: Intensity

Level 4, 2006, p. 1)

the participant may feel comfortable supporting or implementing either a subject-
matter or learning-based approach to instruction based on the content being
addressed. In a subject-matter based approach, learning activities tend to be
sequential, student projects tend to be uniform for all students, the use of lectures
and/or teacher-directed presentations are the norm as well as traditional evaluation
strategies. In a learner-based approach, learning activities are diversified and
based mostly on student questions, the teacher serves more as a co-learner or
facilitator in the classroom, student projects are primarily student-directed, and
the use of alternative assessment strategies including performance-based
assessments, peer reviews, and student reflections are the norm.
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Deborah Zych indicated that the technology

professional development sessions offered following the 2005 Survey were in

response to the Survey data (personal communication, January 7, 2008).

The NCCVT School District conducted the same LoTi survey again in the

spring of 2007 and 164 NCCVT staff members completed the Survey. Based upon

these responses, the median LoTi level of the NCCVT School district is Level 3

(Infusion) on a scale of 0-6 (0-lowest/6-highest) (LoTi

Lounge).

43

NCCVT School District 2006-2007 LoTi Results

H tamber of Staff
^ PercantoftotiJ

Figure 4. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 LoTi Results(0-lowest/6-highest)


Survey slightly less than half, 78 people or 48 percent, scored a LoTi level of 0,1, or

2 (LoTi Lounge).

The Infusion level implies that the following technology-based tools are being

utilized including:

databases, spreadsheet and graphing packages, multimedia and desktop publishing
applications, and internet use complement selected instructional events (e.g., field
investigation using spreadsheets/graphs to analyze results from local water quality
samples) or multimedia/web-based projects at the analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation levels. (National Business Education Alliance, LoTi Framework-Level
3: Infusion, 2006, p. 1)

44

Data from the 2006-2007 Survey also provided insight into staff members'

skill levels with Personal Computer Use (PCU).

NCCVT School District 2006-2007 PCU Results

m Number of Staff
& percent of totaf

Level© Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 LevelS Level fi Level?
Number of Staff 0 1 10 13 31 33 42 29
Percent of total 3% 1% B% BS 1SJ4 23% 26% 18%

Figure 5. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 PCU Results (0-lowest/6-highest)


Survey, the greatest number of respondents, 42 people or 26 percent, scored a PCU

Level 6, on a scale of 0-7. No participants scored a PCU Level 0.

The 2006-2007 LoTi Survey again assessed staff members' Current

Instructional Practices (OP) Intensity Level. The median CIP score was CIP

Intensity Level 4. The mode CIP score was also CIP Intensity Level 4.

45

NCCVT School District 2006-2007 CIP Results

• Number of Staff

«t Percent of total

Figure 6. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 CIP Results (0-lowest/6-highest)
Figure 6 reflects that of the 164 staff members to take the 2006-2007 LoTi

Survey, the majority of staff, 49 people or 30 percent, score a CIP Intensity Level 4.

The District responded to the 2007 Survey data by creating a new professional

development offering entitled the Technology for Teachers series during the 2007-

2008 academic year. The purpose of this series of courses was to "facilitate the

integration of technology in appropriate and meaningful ways" (New Castle County

Vo-Tech School District, Technology for Teachers, 2007, p. 1). Two courses were

offered and each had seven in-person meetings for an hour and a half after school,

Level One and Level Two.

The Level One course discussed the following topics:

46

• Introduction to PowerPoint

• Blackboard Basics

• Getting Started with Excel

According to the Director of Professional Development, Shelley Rouser, the Level

One course was designed to promote the mastery of skills to meet the standards of

LoTi Levels 1 & 2 (personal communication, December 21, 2007).

The Level Two course discussed the following topics:

• United Streaming

• Webquests

• Wikis, Blogs, Podcasts

• Advanced Blackboard

The Level Two course was designed to promote the mastery of skills to meet the

standards of LoTi Level 3. Each course was limited to twenty participants. Two

technology specialists in the district taught the courses.

In addition to the Technology for Teachers series, during the 2007-2008

school year, Rouser indicated (personal communication, December 21,2007) the

following sessions were offered as part of the district professional development plan

relative to technology:

• Blackboard

• Podcasting

• 21 st Century Skills

• Telephone Doctor

47

• Videoconferencing

• Career Cruising

These professional development sessions, past as well as current sessions and/or

courses do not focus on the effective integration of technology into the classroom.

These sessions primarily focus on the training of teachers in particular software

programs. Rouser indicated (personal communication, December 21, 2007) that

current offerings, with the exception of the Technology for Teachers series, are

primarily chosen based on teachers' request for certain topics gathered through LoTi

survey (a multiple choice question), or data gathered from feedback from classroom

observations.

The NCCVT School District's instructional priorities for a two-year period of

time, which concluded on June 30, 2007, were stated in a document entitled, The

Blueprint for Success II (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007). This is

a report that describes the second phase of the NCCVT District-wide strategic plan.

Five components are addressed in this plan, one relates to technology. The plan states

that the District had a goal to "Expand Applied Technology." As part of this goal, the

District plan stated that it would "provide reliable online network and related

equipment upgrades for expanding web-based applications, communication, and

instructional technology" (2007, p. 15).

According to this document, there were 11 strategies with three Measures of

Success. Of the 11 strategies, two addressed the need to increase teachers'

technology integration skills in the district. The first stated that there should be "a

48

maximum percentage of teachers at LoTi Level 1: 25%". Another goal briefly

addressed instructional technology needs: "refocus technology department's work

priorities from hardware/software support to teacher training and instructional

technology" (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007, p. 18). Both of

these strategies are vague and could be subject to various interpretations when

developing professional development sessions. More defined strategies would be

suggested at the District level to better develop targeted improvements in technology

integration.

Following the District's Blueprint for Success II document, are the Balanced

Scorecard/Strategic Plan reports (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007).

These reports include a Technology Plan which states the District will "provide

reliable on-line network and related equipment upgrades for expanding web-based

applications in communications and instructional technology" (2007, p. 1).

The Technology Plan has four strategic objectives. Only the fourth includes

instructional technology: "Create a Strategic Plan for Technology that incorporates

increased levels of instructional technology". The LoTi survey is the state assessment

tool for measuring increased levels of instructional technology for District

improvement. The outcome or process measures of this objective are the number of

instructional technology professional development initiatives and a completed

Strategic Plan (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007, p. 1). These

professional development initiatives should be focused on the LoTi assessment

measures and target those areas noted for improvement.

49

In conclusion, as demonstrated by the review of literature regarding national

and local technology integration professional development, there is a critical need for

NCCVT teachers to receive customized instruction on how to integrate technology in

their teaching environment. As studies have indicated, connectivity does not appear

to be the issue, as most schools are connected to the internet at this point. The issue

appears to be the lack of professional development offerings in schools that are

focused on the integration of technology in the classroom.

Chapter III

Technology Professional Development Pilot Program Description

A six-week pilot program, entitled "Podcasting" was conducted by this

researcher at St. Georges Technical High School. Permission to conduct the program

was granted by the principal of St. Georges Technical High School, Teresa Villa,

Director of Professional Development, Shelley Rouser, and Superintendent of the

NCCVT School District, Dr. Steven Godowsky.

The purpose of conducting the pilot program was to determine whether or not

staff members can increase their overall LoTi scores (including LoTi, PCU, and CIP

scores) by participating in a hybrid model of technology professional development, to

include-face-to-face and online learning through Blackboard. This hybrid model has

not been tried by this District. According to the Literature Review, this model has a

demonstrated measure of success (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000).

The topic "Podcasting" was selected for the program by the researcher for

several reasons. First, it is a professional development classroom workshop taught by

this researcher before. Second, it is a personal interest of the researcher, and the

researcher has personally experienced the multiple uses of podcasting in various

curriculums. The district was not currently pursing ways of training or incorporating

podcasting with staff. Third, there has been expressed interest by District teachers in

receiving training for Podcasting as the last two Podcasting workshops taught by the

researcher in the NCCVT school district were filled to capacity in under a few days.

The researcher has had many requests to teach additional sessions, which although

50

51

were not based on a hybrid model would lend itself to the researcher's hybrid model

given the researcher's personal experience with Podcasting. In addition, the

researcher's experiences with online learning (as a participant and teacher), led the

researcher to believe that the topic could be successfully taught to teachers using a

hybrid learning utilizing both in-person and online instruction. Finally, Podcasting

falls under the category of "multimedia" which is included in most of the questions

asked by the LoTi Survey.

The dates of the pilot program were Monday, February 25, 2008 through

Friday, April 4, 2008. The pilot program was advertised (See Appendix A) to

teachers, administrators and specialists approximately one-week prior to the

beginning of the program. The participants were selected on a voluntary basis and

indicated their desire to join the program by e-mailing the researcher to register. The

program began with 15 teachers and one specialist.

The program was designed to take place primarily online, through the use of

the NCCVT School District's Blackboard system. The researcher created the hybrid

course for the program and titled it STARS: Podcasting. STARS stands for

"Sustained Technology Application Reaches Students" and was created by the

researcher. At the beginning of the program, the hybrid course contained a "LoTi"

section (See Appendix B), a Week 1 section (See Appendix C), and a Discussion

Board section. Each week, an additional "Week" section was added to the course.

Two "face-to-face" meetings were scheduled for the program - at the beginning and

end of the program.

52

The beginning "face-to-face" meeting was held Monday, February 25, 2008

from 7:35 AM to 7:55 AM in the researcher's classroom. The purpose of the meeting

was to welcome participants to the program, describe the purpose of the program, and

outline the activities for the following six weeks. Ten of the registered 16 registered

participants attended. The remaining six had a conflict with other meetings and

followed up with the researcher later that day.

During the first week of the program, participants were provided with

information regarding the LoTi Survey and read a disclosure (See Appendix D) that

explained the process and purpose of taking the survey as well as information

regarding how the data from the survey would be used for the purposes of this study.

Participants acknowledged that they understood their purpose for taking the

survey, the method in which the survey will be taken, and how the survey results

would be used by typing their first and last names in the box below the disclosure and

submitting it through the Blackboard system. All participants submitted their survey

disclosure online and in hard copy.

Participants then registered online at the LoTi Lounge website,

http://www.lotilounge.com in order to take the survey (LoTi Lounge, 2007). They

were provided with directions on how to register via the LoTi section of the

Podcasting online course. After registering with the LoTi Lounge, participants took

the survey. The survey consisted of 50 questions and took approximately thirty

minutes for participants to complete. Most completed the survey without assistance.

53

Two needed help registering, and the researcher provided help by e-mail and in-

person.

Pilot Program Week 1

During "Week 1" of the program (See Appendix C), participants learned what

a Podcast is. They also watched a training video about setting up NewsGator Online

accounts (created by the researcher and posted in Blackboard), as well as searched

and subscribed to Podcasts using NewsGator. Finally, participants read a brief article

about Podcasting in Education (See Appendix E), discussed the article with their

fellow Podcasting peers, and started thinking about ways they could use a Podcast in

their classroom/environment. Participants were active on the discussion board (See

Appendix F) this week and shared ideas as well as questions regarding Podcasting

with one another.

Participants received an e-mail from the researcher at the beginning, middle,

and end of the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additional

information. The researcher personally visited five participants at the school to

provide assistance with various aspects of the Week 1 lesson.


During Week 2 of the program, participants planned a Podcasting lesson to

use during Week 3 with their high school students. They prepared for their lesson by

finding a Podcast that was already created and used the Podcasting Lesson Plan

54

Template (created by the researcher - See Appendix G) to plan for their lesson. Once

finished, teachers posted their Lesson Plan templates in the Blackboard discussion

group to share their ideas. During week 2, teachers also shared links to Podcast

resources they had found in the Blackboard discussion board.



information. The researcher personally visited three participants at the school to

provide assistance with various aspects of Week 2.


During Week 3 of the program, participants gave their Podcasting lessons to

their students. They reflected on how well the lesson was received by students using

the "Reflect" section of the Podcasting Lesson Plan Template. They also shared their

impressions on the lessons with colleagues in the Blackboard Discussion Board. In

addition, participants were introduced to using Blackboard to share their Podcasts

through a training packet (see Appendix H) designed to show participants how to set

up their own Blackboard course, how to link to external websites with Podcasts, and

how to upload Podcast audio files to their course. Participants received an e-mail

from the researcher at the beginning, middle, and end of the week to offer

encouragement, answer questions, and provide additional information. The

researcher personally visited two participants at the school to provide assistance with

various aspects of Week 3.

55


During Week 4 of the program, participants learned how to create their own

Podcast using the Audacity software by watching a training video created by the

researcher and posted in Blackboard. Participants planned for their Podcast by

completing the Podcasting Lesson Plan Worksheet 2 (see Appendix I) and then

sharing their worksheets with the other Podcasting participants online through the use

of the Discussion Board for Week 4.



information. The researcher personally visited three participants at the school to

provide assistance with various aspects of Week 4.


During Week 5 of the program, participants used feedback from other

Podcasting participants to edit their Podcasting Lesson Plan Worksheet 2. They then

recorded their Podcasts using the Audacity software. Participants learned how to

import MP3 music files that are legally shareable because they have a Creative

Commons license into Audacity to use as background music for their introduction,

transitions, and/or closure to their Podcast. These skills were learned by watching a

training video created by the researcher and posted in Blackboard. Participants

posted their completed Podcasts as MP3 files in the Discussion Board for Week 5 to

share with other participants and receive feedback.

56



information.


During Week 6, Podcasting Participants gave the Podcasting lesson they

created to their students. Participants integrated the podcasting technology lesson in a

variety of ways. Some chose to share their Podcast by playing the Audio file over

their laptop or desktop computer with external speakers or through a projection

system. Others chose to upload the Podcast to a Blackboard class they had set up and

had students listen to the Podcast by accessing the site. Still others chose to make

their Podcast a downloadable option so students could add the Podcast to their MP3

players, such as to an IPod.

Once the Participants had completed their lesson, they shared their

experiences with the other participants through the Blackboard Discussion Board.

During Week 6, participants also took the LoTi Post-Survey using the LoTi Lounge.

Participants received an e-mail from the researcher at the beginning, middle, and end

of the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additional

information.

An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom

Similar to An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District To Improve Teachers' Integration of Technology into the Classroom