ed 349 752 ec 301 498 title administrative aspects … · title administrative aspects of...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 349 752 EC 301 498

TITLE Administrative Aspects of Technology. Implementationin Special Education. A Synthesis of Information fromEight Federally-Funded Projects.

INSTITUTION Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices (ED), Washington, DC. Div. of Innovation andDevelopment.

PUB DATE May 92NOTE 42p.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Computer Uses in Education; Demonstration Programs;

*Disabilities; *Educational Technology; ElementarySecondary Education; Federal Programs; InserviceTeacher Education; Instructional Development;Integrated Activities; Integrated Curriculum;Leadership; Microcomputers; OrganizationalCommunication; *Program Administration; ProgramEffectiveness; Program Implementation; ResearchMethodology; *Special Education; Teaching Methods;*Technological Advancement

ABSTRACTThis paper reviews and synthesizes information on the

administrative aspects of technology implementation in specialeducation, based on the findings of eight federally funded projectssponsored by the Division of Innovation and Development of the Officeof Special Education Programs. Three of the projects specificallyfocused on administrative aspects, while the remaining five projectsstudied implementation or integration of technology in general,including both administrative and instructional aspects.Characteristics of successful projects are categorized as follows:(1) providing administrative leadership; (2) promoting communicationand collaboration; (3) providing personnel and technology resources;and (4) providing training and support for teachers. Successfulresearch strategies are outlined. Summary descriptions of theindividual projects are also provided. Projects included:Microcomputers in the Schools--Implementation in Special Education(SRA Technologies and Cosmos Corporation); National AssistanceProject for Special Education Technology (The NETWORK, Inc.);Administrative Applications of Technology (AmericanSpeech-Language-Hearing Association); Studies of Special EducationAdministrative Involvement in Computer Implementation (MacroInternational); Technology Integration Project--Elementary Level(Johns Hopkins University); Evaluation of the Integration ofTechnology for Instructing Handicapped Children--Middle School Level(Education Development Center); Model for the Integration ofTechnology for Instructing Handicapped Students--High School Level(Macro International); and Making Administrative Decisions aboutTechnology by Examining Promising Instructional Practices (MacroInternational). (JDD)

Administrative Aspects of TechnologyImplementation in Special Education

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOnce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

iThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating itMinor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions slated in this docu-ment do not necessarry represent officialOERI O05d1011 or policy

A Synthesis of Information from Eight Federally-Funded Projects

Prepared by the Division of Innovation and DevelopmentOffice of Special Education Programs

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative ServicesUnited States Department of Education

'4:14 May, 1992fY1Z

This paper is a review and synthesis of information on the administrativeaspects of technology implementation in special education based on the findings ofeight federally-funded projects. These projects are listed on page 6. The numbersin the first column of this list are used to identify the projects in the followingdiscussion. Summary descriptions of individual projects can be found in the tablesbeginning on page 7.

The eight projects were funded by the Division of Innovation andDevelopment to study the use of technology in special education. Three of theprojects (3, 4, 8) specifically focused on administrative aspects; while theremaining five projects (1, 2, 5, 6, 7) studied implementation or integration oftechnology in general, including both administrative and instructional aspects.

The projects used a variety of research methods. The most commonapproach (used by all of the projects) was to apply qualitative methods withmultiple data sources such as interviews, observations, and document analysis.Projects also used correlation or multiple regression (4, 7), single subject (5),quasiexperimental (5), and survey (3, 4) methods.

The following discussion of effective administrative practices was based onan analysis of concurring findings across the projects reviewed. It should be notedthat some of the findings were supported by data that were not fully conclusive,and that additional research is needed to support and refine the findings.

Effective Administrative Practices forImplementing Technology in Special Education

csx.All of the projects reported that administrative involvement was important

for the successful implementation of technology in special education. Findingsacross the projects suggested a number of effective administrative practices.These practices can be categorized as follows:

2BEST COP I' AVAILABLE

1. Providing Administrative Leadership2. Promoting Communication and Collaboration3. Providing Personnel and Technology Resources4. Providing Training and Support for Teachers

Findings in each of these categories are discussed below.

1. Providing Administrative Leadership

Patterns of Mixed Centralization and Decentralization. One key issue relatingto administrative leadership was the degree of centralization or decentralization,i.e. the amount of centralized administrative control over technologyimplementation. Several projects found patterns of mixed centralization anddecentralization. Control of instructional applications tended to be decentralized,with teachers determining their own patterns of use, selecting their own software,managing their owr software collections, and sometimes managing hardware (5,7). Special education administrators tended to be more involved in hardware andsoftware acquisition (4, 7). At the school level, principals were reported as makingdecisions at the building level, while teachers had control at the classroom level(5). Decentralization and centralization both had apparent benefits, and a balancebetween the two seemed to be an appropriate goal.

The Benefits of Decentralization. Decentralization of instructional controlwas reported as resulting in great variability in type and extent of CAI use (7).Several projects found value in this decentralization and the flexibility it allowed,advising administrators to encourage rather than force the use of technology, togive teachers choices, to encourage innovation and creativity, and to varyexpectations on the basis of teachers' needs, interests, and abilities (1, 3, 4, 6, 8).

The Benefit: of Centralization. Centralization appeared necessary for certainleadership functions to occur. One project observed that for successful technologyintegration to occur beyond individual classrooms, administrators needed to have avision of the value and potential of computers and to understa.ld that integrationimplied instructional and organizational changes (6). Several other projectssuggested leadership functions, such as communicating support and commitment,identifying implementation models, setting goals, and integrating technology on thebasis of a strong and effective curriculum (2, 3, 4, 6, 8).

Several projects found that centralization was important in ensuring theavailability of resources. One project supported the hypothesis that administratorinvolvement increased the availability of resources and supports which ultimatelylead to increased use of computers by special education students (4).

Plan for a Long-Term, Developmental Process. The process of technologyimplementation was found to be prolonged and marked by different implementation

2

needs at different stages. For example, one project noted that technologyimplementation tended to begin as a "bottom-up" process, but that morecentralized and formalized roles and arrangements eventually developed 11).Another project noted that factors such as a district's current level of use (degreeof integration and staff comfort with computers) and readiness (i.e. administrativesupport, staff and monetary resources) determined appropriate implementationgoals and strategies at each stage (2). This project also noted that developmentand implementation of a practice often required two school years, and that actualinstitutionalization of a new practice rarely occurred in that period of time.

2. Promoting Communication and Collaboration

Between Special Education and Regular Education. Special education andregular education often shared computer resources at the school level (1, 4), andongoing communication between regular and special educators who taught thesame students was reported to facilitate technology integration (6). Establishingcommunication links between regular and special education on technology issueswas reported as an effective practice (1, 6, 8).

Between Administrators and Teachers. One study reported that two typesof skills and authority--administrative control and recent or current instructionalexperience--seemed to be needed when technology was implemented (1). Otherprojects supported the involvement of staff members in planning and implementingprograms or training (3). One project reported that once a technology-relateddecision was made, administrators and teachers needed to communicate directly todetermine if the decision was working or needed revision (6).

In Committees and Groups. One project found that direct interactionsbetween teachers and administrators were infrequent, but occurred most often incommittee settings (4). Another project noted a trend from informal "usersgroups" to established computer committees (7). Projects supported theinvolvement of committees and other groups in technology implementation (3, 7).In fact, one project required districts to assemble local planning teams includingspecial and regular education staff, teachers and administrators, and others as acondition for receiving technical assistance (2).

Between Teachers. One project reported that teachers tended to collaborateregarding software selection, acquisition, and organization of computers (5).Another reported that when two people collaborated to try out software,technology use tended to be more successful (6). Fostering such communicationwas a recommended practice (8).

3

4

3. Providing Personnel and Technology Resources

Personnel Resources. One project reported that administrators oftencontributed to technology implementation by "handpicking" key staff (8). Anotherproject recommended assigning responsibility to an individual on site (4). Anotherproject reported that someone needed to be responsible for maintaining hardware,and that someone needed to be responsible for seeing that technology-relateddecisions were implemented (6).

Technology Resources. Not surprisingly, the projects found that access totechnology was a highly significant factor in technology implementation. Thenature of the access and technology were found to be important. For example,projects found that technology acquisition, allocation and use should beappropriate to current level of technology use, identified technology needs,curriculum goals, and teacher experience and expertise (2, 3, 6).

4. Providing Training and Support for Teachers

Training. Teacher training was found to be important in technologyimplementation (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8). The projects identified a number of factors thatcontributed to teacher participation in training and to the presumed effectivenessof training. Among these were the following:

Controlled introduction of content to avoid overwhelming staffand to allow teachers time to acquire and integrate knowledgeabout students, technology, curricu'um, instruction, andassessment (3, 6).

Teacher reflection with others about their instructional use oftechnology (6).

Training in the use of teacher-modifiable software to increase theuse of CAI and increase curriculum correspondence (5).

Relevance of training, and teacher participation in planning of;raining (8).

Support and Assistance. Technical assistance or support for teachers wasalso identified as critical, both as a follow-up to training and as an independentprocedure (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8). One project reported that during the early stages oftechnology implementation, teacher assistance was more critical than training (1).Another project reported that on-the-spot technical assistance accounted for agood deal of staff development (8). Assistance providers included technology orcomputer coordinators (1, 8), support grcups (3, 8), and other teachers (3, 5, 6, 7,8).

4

5

Research Strategies

The Use of Qualitative Methods

The extensive use of qualitative methods in these projects can be attributedto aspects of the research topic such as the following.

Holistic. There were numerous interrelated variables that could not bemeaningfully studied in isolation. Variables associated with administrators,teachers, hardware and software, policies, classroom practice, etc. all acted andinteracted in various and complex ways.

Exploratory. The researchers had to expect the unexpected. Becauserelatively little was known about the processes of integration or implementation oftechnology in special education, designs were needed that could deal withunexpected findings in a systematic way.

Difficult to Quantify. Many important factors were difficult to quantify andmeasure. For example, teacher perceptions, aspects of the school culture, shifts inorganizational structures, etc. were best dealt with using qualitative methods.

Successful Research Strategies

The projects reviewed for this paper faced a significant challenge inconducting research on a broad and complex topic with limited time and resources.Projects had the greatest apparent success in addressing this challenge when theymet the following conditions:

Interpretations and conclusions were realistic andparsimonious in view of the available data, i.e. data were notstretched "too thin."

Complete descriptions were provided of settings, methods,findings and analysis procedures, allowing the reader to followthe chain of evidence from data to conclusions, and tointerpret the conclusions appropriately.

Appropriate and rigorous analysis techniques were employed.

Materials and approaches to implementation were firmly basedon research.

Implementation recommendations were tested and revised onthe basis of field-based try outs, giving adequate attention tothe implementation process as well as the desired outcomes.

5

6

Project List

Project Project Name and Institution Page

Number

(1) Microcomputers in the Schools--Implementation in Special 7Education. SRA Technologies, Inc. and CosmosCorporation.

(2) The National Assistance Project for Special Education 10Technology. The NETWORK, Inc.

(3) The Administrative Applications of Technology. American 15Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

(4) Studies of Special Education Administrative Involvement in 17Computer Implementation. Macro International, Inc.

(5) Technology Integration Project (Elementary Level). Johns 20Hopkins University.

(6) Evaluation of the Integration of Technology for Instructing 23Handicapped Children (Middle School Level). EducationDevelopment Center.

(7) Model for the Integration of Technology for InstructingHandicapped Students (High School Level). MacroInternational, Inc.

(8) Making Administrative Decisions about Technology byExamining Promising Instructional Practices. MacroInternational, Inc.

6

7

28

33

(1) Microcomputers in the SchoolsImplementation in Special Education

INSTITUTION SRA Technologies, Inc. and Cosmos Corporation

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE 1982 - 1984

PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) ANDPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S)

Tom V. Hanley and Robert K. Yin

FEDERAL PROJECTOFFICER(S)

Jane Hauser

CONTRACT NUMBER 300-82-0250

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FORTHIS PAPER

MicrocomputersEducation: CaseSpecial Education:Information Bulletin,

in the Schools--Implementation in SpecialStudy Report (1983); Microcomputers in

Organizational Issues (1983); MICROSPEDIssues 1-10 (1984)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Refer to ERIC Documents ED 254 006; ED 238 222; ED 238221.

Contact Tom Hanley at OSEP/OSERS, U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Washington DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8110.

CONTENT ANDBACKGROUND

This project studied microcomputer implementation in specialeducation.

RESEARCH METHODS RESEARCH FINDINGS

Case studies were conducted of 12 schooldistricts, which were selected on the basis ofgeographic dispersion, elementary andsecondary programs, administrative andinstructional applications, instructionalapplications with students representing avariety of handicapping conditions, history ofimplementation at least one-and-one-halfyears prior to the study, and varying patternsof collaboration between special and regulareducators in the use of computers.

The focus was on "microcomputer systems",defined as a set of microcomputers sharedby an identifiable group of users andcharacterized by shared resources anddecision making.

Initial Adoption

Initial adoption tended to be "bottom-up"rather than "top-down", often initiated by asmall group of teachers operating in relativeisolation from the central administration.Collaborative planning between regular andspecial education during initial adoption wasnot a requirement for subsequentcollaboration.

Later Collaborative Patterns

Following initial adoption ofmicrocomputers, there was extensivecollaboration between regular and specialeducation in purchasing and allocating

7

a

1 Data were collected during site visits inaccordance with a case study protocol.

hardware, managing use, training staff, andselecting and using software.

* The high degree of collaboration betweenspecial and regular education tended to begreatest at the school level.

* There was no strong differentiationbetween special education and regulareducation use of microcomputers. Identicalor similar hardware and software wereused, inservice training was similar, andcomputer resources were often shared.

* However, special education use ofmicrocomputers emphasized CAI, whileregular education use emphasized computerliteracy and programming, but also includedCAI.

* There were some specialized specialeducation applications such as IEP systems,communication aides, and adaptedcomputer devices.

Supervising Microcomputers-Top Down orBottom Up?

* No pattern of centralization ordecentralization dominated. Most schoolsystems contained both centralized anddecentralized decision-making patterns.

* Patterns shifted over time--key personnelshifted their roles, teachers becamerecognized computer coordinators.

* Neither centralized nor decentralizedpatterns were clearly superior. Both hadpotential advantages and pitfalls.

* A more important factor seemed to be thepresence of persons with key skills andauthority: recent or current teachingexperience and administrative control.Pet sons with these skills can work as aformal or informal team.

Administrative vs Instructional Applications

The growth of microcomputer systemstended to be strongest where administrativeand instructional applications were mixed.

8

9

Training and Emerging Staff Roles

4 Availability of training was associated withutilization of microcomputers.

* During the early start-up phase, trainingwas not a critical factor. Early users tendedto be self-taught, and individual technicalassistance appeared to be more importantat this phase.

* As implementation became morewidespread, training became a moreefficient way to reach a larger number ofteachers.

* The relevance of training was critical forteacher participation.

* Training for special educators was similar totraining for regular educators.

* In each of the school districts, one or morepersons were identified to plan and managemicrocomputers. In most cases, schooldistricts established "coordinator" positionswhich tended to be school based.

DISSEMINATION/IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES

DISSEMINATION/IMPLEMENTATIONOUTCOMES

A series of ten monthly reports summarizingprincipal research findings were issued during1984. One of these reports listed thefollowing major elements of effectiveimplementation:

1 Acquire microcomputers on anincremental basis.

2 Appoint a microcomputer coordinator.3 Formalize staff and user training.4 Involve both administrators and teachers

in the implementation process.5 Make microcomputer applications work

early; start with simple approaches.6 Expand microcomputer uses to include

administrative as well as instructionalapplications.

7 Define and nurture a microcomputer"system."

(2) The National Assistance Project for Special Education Technology

INSTITUTION The NETWORK, Inc.



Michael Mayo

FEDERAL PROJECTOFFICER(S)

Jane Hauser



Final Report: Part I (Project Description); Part II (Evaluation);and Part III (Case-Studies and Vignettes) (1986)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Michael Mayo, The Network, Inc., 300 BrickstoneSquare, Suite 900, Andover, MA 01810. Telephone: (508)470-1080.


This project provided technical assistance to local schooldistrict personnel as they implemented technology withinspecial education programs. The general approach was basedon previous research on external change agents and schoolimprovement, and attempted to combine dissemination withdevelopment of local capacity for problem solving. Previousresearch findings included: the significance of person-to-person assistance, the need for sustained assistance overtime, the importance of faculty involvement and administratorsupport, and the essential role of internal leadership.


Specific technical assistance approachesincluded: individualized planning assistance,information services, training anddemonstrations, linking and networking, andconsulting with national experts.

Key implementation features included LocalCo-Coordinators, Local Planning Teams, andCooperative Assistance Agreements.

During the first year, pilot testing in three LEAsindicated that attention to processes and long-range goals needed to be tempered withunderstanding of the LEAS' more immediate andcontent-oriented concerns.

During the three-year course of the project,technical assistance was provided to over fiftyspecial education programs around the country.

Seven in-depth case studies and six "mini-cases" were conducted using exploratorycase study and qualitative data analysismethodologies.

Data were gathered using questionnaires,interviews, and observations.

Types of outcomes addressed included:

1 development/implementation of newpractices

2 institutionalization of new practices3 institutionalization of ongoing process to

address issues of special educationtechnology

Main research Questions: The site-specific variables found to have thegreatest impact on the outcomes of technical

1 The impact of site condition variables on assistance were:project outcomes

1 The level of the district's use of technologyin special education prior to the intervention(the degree computers were integrated intoinstructional and administrative practices,and the degree teachers and administratorswere comfortable with their use)

2 The district's readiness to make change* administrative support* amount of staff time to work on project

access to monetary resources in district3 The nature of the local planning team,

including* the team's knowledge and skill re

technology* the team's interest and skill re planning

for change* the level of team commitment to the

process of technology implementation4 The quality of team leadership -- ability to

coordinate a team effort5 The organizational context

'11

12

2 The impact of particular technicalassistance strategies (goals andactivities) on project outcomes

Five categories of goals emerged:

1 Training--planning team or district widetraining on technology or planning forchange

2 Implementation of new przinstructional or administrate

3 Development of management systems-software acquisition and distribution, etc.

4 Development of long range integrative plans5 Development of fund-raising strategies

Selections of goals and activities by themselvesdid not affect success. But, selections werecritical when analyzed in terms of siteconditions (see question 1):

1 Level of use:* If the level of use was low, goals and

activities were most successful if thefocus was on raising the general level ofawareness and interest, rather thanimplementing concrete, definedpractices.

* If the level of use was moderate or high,goals and activities were most successfulif the focus was cn developingmanagement systems and writing longrange plans for integrating technologyinto the curriculum.

2 Readiness to make change (resources andadministrative support):* In districts lacking in resources or

administrative supports, it was critical toaddress these factors before going on toother goals and activities.

3 Nature of the local planning team(knowledge and skills in technology andplanning):* Goals and activities were most

successful when the district was readyand team was oriented to planning, andleast successful when there was nodistrict readiness or interest in planning.

3 The impact of the assistance provider's(liaison's) individual style, expertise, orapproach on project outcomes

The assistance provider's style and expertisehad no particular effect on success. Allseemed to nave core set of skills (listed inreport). Sophisticated technical expertise wasless important than expertise in planning forchange.

12

13

4 The impact of the intensity and duration Five days of on-site assistance during theof technical assistance on project school year was generally the maximumoutcomes amount that an LEA could use effectively.

More intense assistance could not compensatefor lack of leadership, poor team skills, or lowreadiness.

Most sites could have benefitted fromassistance over a longer period of time,particularly sites with !ow levels of use and lowreadiness.

The development and implementation of apractice often took two full school years.

Institutionalization occurred in only a few sitesover the course of two years sites wheretechnology was already in use, readiness washigh, and team skills were well-developed.

Organizational Context The following findings applied to regional andstate levels:

The project included some multi-LEAlevels of organization--state or regional * Liaisons needed to pay particular attentionorganizations--to study organizational to the organizational structure.context. * Planning and process issues were more

important than at local level.* Regional or state organizations needed to

have established infrastructures andworking relationships with their constituentdistricts for the project to be successful.

* Assistance worked best when teamsfocused on regional/state goals (e.g.establishing a regional resource base) ratherthan local goals.

* Two years of assistance was absolutelynecessary to develop and disseminate newpractices.

Effective Technical Assistance Strategies--organized by outcome:

For districts with low levels of use or support,successful strategies promoted knowledge and

_ skill development by the team and expanded1 For implementation of new practices support. On-site visits, software review days,

"mini-fairs", pilot tests, etc. were effective.

13

14

2 For institutionalization of new practices This required at least a mechanical level of useand a moderate level of support. Assistancewith planning, setting up systems,incorporating computers into budgetingprocess, user groups, etc. were effectivestrategies.

3 For institutionalization of a process toaddress issues of special educationtechnology

This required established technology practices,a skilled planning team, and considerableadministrative support. Strategies revolvedaround cultivating administrative support andincorporating technology planning into existingstructures.



Dissemination and implementation wereaddressed in the technical assistanceprovided during the period of funding.Strategies and outcomes are discussedabove. Dissemination beyond this periodwas not discussed in the documentsreviewed.

14

15

(3) The Administrative Applications of Technology

INSTITUTION American Speech-Language-Hearing Association



James Gelatt and Helen Pollack

FEDERAL PROJECT OFFICER Jane Hauser

GRANT NUMBER H180080012


Final Report (1990),in Schools (1991)

and Computerizing Administrative Tasks

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact the Sponsored Programs Division of the AmericanSpeech-Language-Hearing Association, 10801 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 897-5700.


This project studied administrative uses of computers inspeech and hearing programs.


Telephone Survey. This survey wasof

used

The survey found only small number ofadministrators who used computers foradministration.

conducted to identify administratorsspeech and hearing programs whocomputers for administration.

Mail Survey. This survey was conducted toused,

The survey results were used to develop aprofile of computer users.determine how technology was

acquired, etc.

Case Studies. Case studies were conductedin 15 sites using interviews, focus groups,document examination, observation, etc. tolook for characteristics, trends, strategies,procedures, etc.

The results were used to identify the followingelements necessary for successfulimplementation of computers in administration.

1 Involvement and commitment of top leveladministration

2 Cooperation with other areas in the schooldistrict, particularly those concerned withtechnology

3 Encouragement of creativity and innovation4 Knowledge of technology needs so

equipment can be made availablc5 Provision of access to computers and

encouraging (not forcing) their use6 Support for new technology users from

support groups or colleagues7 Involvement of groups in decision making

concerning technology introduction and use8 Involvement of staff members in planning

and implementing specific programs9 Encouragement of feeling of ownership by

aiding in access to programs and providingopportunity to actually manipulate data

10 Introduction of one new thing at a time, notoverwhelming staff with too muchinformation

11 Provision of training and later support forcomputer users



Manual: Computerizing Administrative Tasksin Schools (1 991). This manual reflects thefindings of the research, and includesadditional information.

16

17

(4) Studies of Special Education Administrative Involvement in Computer Implementation

INSTITUTION Macro International, Inc.

PERIOD OF PERFORMAI"CE 1988 - 1991


Louise Appell, Carolyn De Meyer Harris and Tom V. Hanley


GRANT NUMBER H180080006


Final Report-Phase II (1991)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Refer to ERIC Document EC 232 181.

Contact Louise Appell at Macro International, Inc., 8630Fenton Street, Suite 300, Silver Spring, MD 20910.Telephone: (301) 890-5128.


This project studied special education administratorinvolvement in computer implementation. It was based on amodel with the following four domains: administrative, humanresources, material resources, instructional applications.


Phase I: A telephone interview survey wasto

the

A number of findings were reported aboutspecial education administrators involvement indecision making about computer resources.

Generally it was found that special educationadministrators were involved in the purchase ofsoftware or hardware, and that they tended touse computers for administrative purposes.

There was less evidence of direct interactionbetween teachers and administrators.Generally, these interactions took place incommittee settings.

Special education and regular educationstudents frequently used computers together.

Training and technical assistance were widelyavailable to teachers.

conducted with 100 school districtsobtain information on factors influencinguse of computers in special education.

17

18

Correlational analyses were conducted ofconstructs derived from survey, includingteacner and administrator involvement indecision making, availability of training andtechnical assistance, hardware and softwareavailability, and use of computers withspecial education students.

Strong correlations were reported betweenadministrator involvement with computercommittees and student use of computers.Administrative involvement correlated with theavailability of hardware and software. Severalother correlations were reported betweencomputer coordinator involvement, teacherinvolvement, availability of training, andavailability of hardware or software.

Phase II: Case studies were conducted in 3school districts. Data were collected bymeans of surveys, interviews andobservations.

The studies were intended to test thehypotheses that:

Increased administrative use and/or greateroutside experience lead to...

Increased administrator involvement indistrict-level technology planning anddecision making, which leads to...

Increased availability of hardware and/orsoftware and/or training and technicalassistance and/or increased special educationtechnology planning, which lead to...

Increased use of computer-basedtechnologies by special education students.

Case studies were presented for the 3 districts,followed by analysis of specific constructs andpropositions related to administrative role intechnology use. In general, the hypotheseswere supported, i.e. it was concluded thatspecial education administrator's involvementin technology planning was correlated withhardware and software use by specialeducation students.

DISSEMINATION/IMPLENIENTATIONSTRATEGIES


A set of guidelines (below) was developedfor special education administrators.Guidelines were based on this project, MacroInternational's technology integration project(7), and literature.

Information was disseminated throughSpeciaINET, ERIC, conference presentations,etc.

18

19

Guidelines:

A Define and communicate your interest intechnology

B Identify a model for technologyintegration

C Get your office involvedD Identify an individual to take chargeE Concentrate your energiesF Aligning technology applications with

your curriculumG Be open to experimentationH Pilot test good ideasI Tap into an enormous network of

knowledgeJ Take advantage of available resourcesK Use technology yourselfL Spend training dollars liberallyM Use technology to renew teachers'

enthusiasm for teachingN Address multiple training needsO Ensure that the training needs of special

education teachers are metP Recognize the importance of flexibility in

trainingQ Maximize the outcomes of inservice

training sessionsR Be inclusiveS Follow up after training exercisesT Assign responsibility to an individual on

siteU Establish a policy for replacing old

hardware

(5) Technology Integration Project (elementary level)

INSTITUTION Johns Hopkins University



Marion V. Panyon and Jeff Hummel

FEDERAL PROJECT OFFICER Judy Fein



Draft of Model (Vol 1, 2 and 3) (1989); TechnologyIntegration Enhancement (manual, 1991); Principal'sAssistant (manual, 1989); Final Report for Evaluation of theIntegration of Technology for Instructing HandicappedChildren-Elementary Level (1991)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact the Center for Technology and Human Disabilities,181 North Bend Road, Baltimore MD 21229. Telephone:(410) 646-3000.


The purpose of this project was to develop and test a modelfor integrating technology into instruction for handicappedstudents at the elementary level.

3-Dimension Integration Model: The project was based on amodel of technology integration with the following threedimensions: (1) Principles (see below); (2) Levels ofOrganization (see below); and (3) Collaboration (whichpromotes successful integration of technology)

1 Three "Research-based Technology Integration Principles":

1 Curriculum correspondence2 Monitored progress3 Instructional organization

2 Three Levels of Organization:

1 Classroom2 Building3 District

Based on reviews of literature, goals, objectives andstrategies were proposed for each cell of the model.

20

21


A series of 12 studies were conducted using The following are summarized findings acrossdescriptive and single-subject designs tofocus on topics dispersed throughout themodel.

the studies.

A Catalog descriptions indicated that therewere CAI programs with curriculumcorrespondence in the market place, buttruly accessible CAI with curriculumcorrespondenCe was not always availableto teachers.

B IEP's were congruent with curriculum butmade no mention of CAI. Teachers did notplan CAI use when writing IEP's.

C Computerized IEP's were more specificthan hand-written IEP's.

D Students often did better when the teacherintroduced CAI and linked it to otherresource room instruction. This effectappeared to be influenced by student ageand degree of skill proficiency. Thisfinding suggested that teachers should notrely on software, even "tutorial software",to teach students.

E Students might not know about or usesoftware features fully or effectivelyunless the teacher provided instruction andsupport.

F The teacher must be actively involved inCAI planning and implementation.

G Training in the use of teacher-modifiablesoftware increased the use of CAI andincreased curriculum correspondence.Supports (such as teacher assistants toenter lesson content) might facilitate thisprocess.

H Teachers tended to plan CAI use in mannersimilar to other instructional decisions.

1 Teachers used a variety of methods tomonitor student performance on CAI,including on-line data, observation, andstudent self-report.

J Teachers typically used computers topractice academic skills.

K Principals were key decision makers for thebuilding level. Teachers were key decisionmakers for the classroom level, such asstudent uses of computers, grouping,software used, etc.

L Teachers tended to collaborate regardingsoftware selection, acquisition, andorganization of computers.



The following implementation products weredeveloped:

Technology Integration Enhancement

Stages of Concern tended to shift from lowerto higher stages.

Levels of Use also shifted to higher levels.

Innovation Configuration data indicated thatteachers were using the elements of the model--curriculum correspondence, organization andmonitoring. Monitoring progress wasimplemented less than other areas.

Sessions were evaluated positively.

Further dissemination activities were describedin the Final Report.

(1991) Training package withtransparencies, handouts andinstructions for presenters.

* Principal's Assistant (1989) Guide forprincipals on using computers.

The implementation materials were fieldtested in 11 schools in 4 LEAs. Schoolpersonnel served as "Internal ChangeFacilitators". Six schools in 3 LEAscontinued with the second year.

Training focused on curriculumcorrespondence, instructional organization,and monitoring progress. Training wasscheduled in 75-minute time slots before,during, or after the instructional day.

Concerns Based Adoption measures Stagesof Concern, Levels of Use, InnovationConfigurations were collected before andafter training. Session evaluations were alsocollected.

22

23

(6) Evaluation of the Integration of Technology for Instructing Handicapped Children (Middle

School Level)

INSTITUTION Education Development Center



Catherine Cobb Morocco and Judith Zorfass




Final Report of Phase I (1989); Final Report of Phase II(1991); Make It Happen (manual) (1991)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Refer to ERIC Documents ED 342 159 and ED 342 160

Contact Judith Zorfass at Education Development Center,Inc., 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02160. Telephone:(617) 969-7100, ext. 426.


The purpose of this project was to develop and test a modelfor integrating technology into instruction for handicappedstudents at the middle school level.

The project began with an open-ended plan for studyingtechnology integration in terms of factors at theorganizational level (resources, mechanisms, policies, training,etc.) and at the instructional level (teacher knowledge,practices, etc.).

In phase II, the research findings were combined with severalnew assumptions (e.g. the value of inquiry-based curriculum,etc.) to develop a model for integrating technology intoinstruction.


An intensive, naturalistic study wasconducted in four diverse middle schools inMassachusetts.

The project had originally proposed a seriesof large-scale quantitative studies, but founda level of complexity best studied"holistically".

Sixteen major findings were reported.Abbreviated versions are presented below. TheFinal Report of Phase I presented these findingsand gave illustrative examples.

23

24

The goal of the study was to describe theintegration process and identify key variablesand linkages among them.

In the first year, the project noticed that theintegration process was slow. A decisionwas made to accelerate the process whenpossible by means of training, providingsoftware, etc.

The organizational level: The focus was oncontextual and institutional factors.Research methods included focus groups,interviews, observations, etc.

The instructional level: To identify criticalteacher practices, administrative practices,supports, etc. Research methods includedobservations, interviews, etc.

Cumulative analysis involved writing andvalidating case studies, identifying cross-sitefactors, developing and organizing assertionsabout technology integration, developingconceptual framework.

Teacher knowledge and practice

1 ...teachers needed to gradually acquireand/or draw on and integrate knowledgeabout ...students, technology, curriculum,instruction, and assessment.

2 ...it was critical for teachers to be activelyinvolved with students' use of software...

3 When teachers engaged with others inongoing reflection about their instructionaluse of technology, they were more likelyto evaluate their practice and redesigninstruction...

Technology resources

4 Someone needed to be responsible forensuring that hardware was kept in goodworking condition and that technicalproblems were solved.

5 When there was some mechanism fornarrowing down choices of software,teachers were more likely to try integratingtechnology into classes.

Teacher development

6 When novice computer users had someoneto turn to for knowledge about computersas well as emotional support andreassurance, they were more likely tobegin integrating technology.

7 Inservice workshops could contribute toteachers' acquisition of knowledge, butwere insufficient in helping teachers usethe knowledge. Teachers [needed)ongoing school-based support andstructures for communication andcollaboration.

Communication and collaboration

8 When two people worked togethercollaboratively to try out software,technology use tended to be moresuccessful.

9 Regular, ongoing communication betweenregular and special educators who taughtthe same students often facilitatedtechnology integration...

24

25

School-based facilitation

10 When decisions about hardwareacquisition and allocation focused oncurriculum goals and teacher experienceand expertise, they were more likely tolead to successful integration than whenthey focused on issues of equity andaccess.

11 Once a technology-related decision wasmade, it was unlikely to be implementedunless someone determined what steps totake and ensured that they were taken.

12 Once a technology-related decision wasmade, administrators and teachers neededto communicate directly to determine if thedecision was working or needed revision.

13 To support teacher development,administrators needed to put structures inplace so teachers could communicate andcollaborate.

14 When administrators varied expectationsaccording to teachers' needs, interests,and abilities and gave teachers choices...,successful integration was more likely tooccur.

15 In order for integration to occur beyondindividual classrooms, administratorsneeded to have a vision of the value andpotential of computers; and understandthat integration implied instructional andorganizational changes.

16 Policies and procedures should promotelinks between special and regulareducation...



The model was developed intc a manualentitled Make It Happen! which was field

Schools tended to implement the componentsof Make It Happen! but with a large amount of

tested in four middle schools inMassachusetts, New Hampshire, and NewYork.

Data collection for the field test includedinterviews, observations, documentexamination, and structured feedback.Qualitative analysis methods were used onthese data.

variability.

Two schools evaluated their implementation ashighly successful. The other two felt that theyhad learned a great deal.

25

26

In addition, the Stages of Concernquestionnaire (focusing on the inquiry-basedcurriculum) was administered before, duringand after the intervention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL ASIMPLEMENTED

Make It Happen! represented a change infocus from technology to curriculum. It wasa school-based approach for integratingtechnology in the context of aninterdisciplinary, inquiry-based curriculumcalled "I-search".

A planning team consisting of regular andspecial education teachers, specialists, andadministrators implemented the curriculum.

The guiding principles of the approach arepresented in abbreviated form below.

1 The approach must respond to thedramatic changes in early adolescence.

2 Teachers themselves must engage in aninquiry process.

3 The assumption is that active, inquirylearning benefits all students.

4 The approach must promote changeconcurrently at the organizational,curriculum, and instructional levels (seecomponents below).

5 The approach must engagerepresentatives from all sectors of theschool community--students, teachers,administrators, etc.

6 The approach must make ongoingcommunication and collaboration anessential feature of the innovation.

7 The approach must be developmental- -tasks required at each phase ofinnovation

The components of the approach at theorganizational and instructional levels arepresented below:

Four factors that apparently facilitatedimplementation were: (1) a strong facilitator,(2) communication and collaboration betweenteachers, (3) curriculum flexibility, (4)understanding of inquiry-based learning.

FIELD TEST OUTCOMES

Stages of Concern

Across the three administrations, thisinstrument revealed patterns of decreasingconcerns at the stages of awareness,information, and personal; level collaborationconcerns; and increasing concerns at thestages of management, consequence, andrefocusing.

Student Outcomes:

* Teachers reported increased studentcontent knowledge.

* Students displayed use of informationsearch resources and methods.Teachers reported and students displayedpositive attitudes about I-search.

Teacher Outcomes:

* Teachers reported and displayed increasedknowledge and skills related to theapproach, such as inquiry learning, writingprocess, word processing, student needs,etc.Teachers displayed the application ofknowledge and skills in classroom practice.

* Teachers displayed communication andcollaboration during implementation.

* Teachers performed new leadershipfunctions related to the model.

Organizational Outcomes:

* Some changes in roles were observed forteachers and principals.Technical assistance was provided toteachers.

* Changes in organization structures includedchanges in schedules to allow planning andstudent grouping, new teacher teams.Acquisition and allocation of resourcesincluded teacher discovery of resources

26

27

Organizational Level

1 The principal assumes overall leadership.2 A strong facilitator guides the process.3 A site-based management team shares

decision-making.4 An interdisciplinary team of teachers

designs the curriculum.

Instructional Level

1 An "I-search" approach underlies theinstructional process.

2 Several key instructional approachessupport the I-search process:

* Teacher as facilitator* Active learning* Cooperative learning* Technology as a tool (simulations,

databases, word processors, graphics,etc.)

* Process writing* Ongoing assessment

REVISIONS TO THE APPROACH

Based on the field test, minor revisions weremade to the implementation model andmaterials.

REVISION TO PHASE I FINDINGS

Based on the field test, the findings from PhaseI were revised to reflect the importance of thecurriculum. It was suggested that theintegration of technology was not driven bytechnology, but by developing a strong andeffective curriculum. The 16 findings fromphase I were revised and expanded to reflectthis emphasis on curriculum and the role oftechnology in the curriculum, and to suggestinquiry-based learning as a means forintegrating technology.

The process of implementing Make ItHappen! was envisioned as beginning in thespring of one academic year and extendingthrough the spring of the next academicyear. The following phases were included:(1) Start-up, (2) Curriculum design, (3)Curriculum implementation, (4) Evaluation,and (5) Expansion.

27

28

(7) Model for the Integration of Technology for Instructing Handicapped Students (High SchoolLevel)




Louise Appell, Michael Livesay and Tom V. Hanley




Model for the Integration of Technology for InstructingHandicapped Students (1989); Phase II Implementation andEvaluation of the Model: Evaluation of the Integration ofTechnology for Instructing Handicapped Students (HighSchool Level) (1989); Final Report: Evaluation of theIntegration of Technology for Instructing HandicappedStudents (High School Level) (1989); Final Report, Phase II:Evaluation of the Integration of Technology for InstructingHandicapped Students (High School Level) (1991); A Modelfor Technology Integration (manual, ND)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Louise Appell at Macro International, Inc., 8630Fenton Street, Suite 300, Silver Spring, MD 20910.Telephone: (301) 890-5128.


The purpose of this project was to develop and test a modelfor integrating technology into instruction for handicappedstudents at the high school level.

The project was based on a model of technology integrationwith four organizational domains: (1) administrative, (2)human resources, (3) material resources, and (4) classroominstructional applications.

Principal lines of influence in this model flowed fromadministrative to human and material resources, then toclassroom applications. However, secondary lin r-, ofinfluence connected other domains. For example, classroompractices influenced the administrative domain.

A research taxonomy was developed to organize research inthe literature.

28

29


Case Studies CASE STUDY FINDINGS:

Case studies were conducted with a sampleof 10 high schools and 29 special educationteachers in 2 school districts.

1 Administration

* Planning and implementation ofinstructional applications tended to be

Sources of information included interviews,direct observation, document review.

highly decentralized (little administrativeinvolvement).

* Administrators were highly involved in thepurchase of hardware.

* Special education teachers had beeneffective in obtaining computers.

* Teachers determined their own patterns ofuse.

* Decentralization resulted in great variabilityin the type and extent of CAI use.

2 Group Organization

* There was a trend from informal "usersgroups" to established computercommittees.

* Committees at school and district levelstended to focus on hardware--acquisition,allocation.

3 Hardware Distribution

* Hardware was mostly Apple II and IBMclones in computer labs or classrooms.

* Management of hardware was oftenassigned to a teacher.

4 Software Distribution

* Of 17 categories of software, 15 wereavailable.

* Word processing and CAI in math, readingand language arts were most commonlyused.

* 87 specific programs were used, but only13 in three or more settings.

* Teachers tended to select software andmanage their own software collections.

29

30

5 Special Education Classes

* Of 29 special education teachers, 22 maderegular use, 7 made little or no use ofcomputers.

* The most common uses were studentrecords, CAI, and word processing.

* Teachers managed and scheduledcomputers, often providing them as areward.

* Neither computer-managed instruction norother techniques to integrate or monitorCAI were evident.

* Greatest "unmet needs" reported were formore hardware and for assistance inselecting and acquiring software.

6 Inservice Training and Technical Assistance

* Little school-based computer-relatedinservice training was provided.

* Teachers tended to rely on other teachersin their schools for one-to-one technicalsupport. Most often, these were computercoordinators and media specialists.Sometimes, specific teachers were viewedas experts.

7 High School Computer Applications

* Besides special education, threedepartments that most used computerswere math, science and business.

Technology Assessment Survey Ratings of importance were found to differbetween teacher groups. For example, specialeducation teachers rated games, behaviormanagement and rewards more important thandid teachers generally.

Levels of use were also found to differ. Forexample, special education teachers tended touse drill and practice, tutorial, educationalgames, behavior management and rewardsmore than did teachers generally.

A survey was developed to finddiscrepancies between actual and desiredtechnology uses. The survey was tried outin year one, refined and used in subsequentyears. Survey results were used to providefeedback to the schools.

Computer Industries Substudy Comments were obtained relating to productdevelopment, marketing and advertising,partnerships with school districts, and futuredirections.

A survey of software and hardware vendorswas conducted to obtain their perspective.

30

31

Study on the Association Between District High negative correlations were found betweenmean district size and decisionmakinginvolvement of teachers.

Size and Teacher Decisionmakina

Data from the National Center forEducational Statistics on average district sizefor each state was correlated with theCarnegie (1988) survey on teacherdecisionmaking.

Curricular Studies The average number of IEP objectives was 33.Differences were observed between contentareas and school districts.

Courses for special education students werenot unlike typical schedules fornonhandicapped peers.

Computers were used in 13% of courseperiods, for language arts (68 periods per year),vocational education/IA (33), math (27), andsocial studies (10).

Further analysis was presented on the uses ofcomputers in curriculum for special educationand regular education.

Studies were conducted to define thecurriculum in terms of IEP objectives andinstructional experiences.

A curriculum taxonomy was developedcontaining specific curriculum content areas(1,126) in math, language arts, and otherareas.

A sample of 137 mildly handicappedstudents were included. Data were collectedon background information, courseschedules, IEP objectives and participation inCAI. A list of 1909 software products wasused.

Evaluation of Critical Issues for the Model Ratings were reported.

Project staff collected comments and ratingsfor critical issues.



The model was developed into a manualwhich was field tested in six high schools infour school districts.

Data collection included interviews,technology surveys, observations, telephonemonitoring of meetings and activities,document reviews, etc.

The technology survey used in Phase I wasadministered in three schools twice--onceearly in Phase II and once at the end ofPhase II.

Summary descriptions organized by modeldomains were presented for the districts andschools.

FINAL PRODUCT

Following the field test, a revised version of themanual was prepared. Entitled A Model forTechnoloav Intearation, this manual hadsections on instructional, administrative, humanresources, and material resources domains.Targeted at administrators, the manual wasdesigned for usability.

31

32

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL ASIMPLEMENTED

The manual included information on thefollowing integration activities.

Integration Activities in the AdministrativeDomain

Information gathering--survey users,needs analysisEstablishing technology planCooperative planningCollaborationTechnology Committees--district andschool levelLeadership

Integration Activities in the HumanResources Domain (staff development)

Identify competenciesLevels of training (basic, intermediate,advanced)Training methods, incentivesEstablishing and defining roles--computercoordinator, technician, media specialist

Managing Material Resources for TechnologyIntegration

Defining purposesDesigning installationsInstalling and introducingOperating and supportingEvaluating suitabilityIssues of equity, placement

Classroom Instructional Applications

Organizing to enable computerapplicationsPlanning and implementing classroominstructional applications

32

33

(8) Making Administrative Decisions about Technology by Examining Promising InstructionalPractices




Louise Appel! and Elaine Robey


CONTRACT NUMBER HS90009001


Technical Proposal (1990); Deliverable #7 Case StudyReports from Site Visits (1991); Deliverable #8 Case StudyReports from Site Visits (1991); List of Themes from CaseStudies (working document)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Louise Appell at Macro International, Inc., 8630Fenton Street, Suite 300, Silver Spring, MD 20910.Telephone: (301) 890-5128.


The basic intent of this project was to identify promisingpractices in technology and use these as a vehicle forinforming administrators about effective uses of instructionaltechnology.

Efforts were based on Macro's four-domain model oftechnology integration: administrative, human resources,material resources, classroom instructional applications.


Information was gathered from literature andexpert opinion.

Themes from the case studies were reported ina working document. Condensed versions ofthese themes are presented below:

Case studies were conducted of promisingtechnology practices.

I ADMINISTRATIVE DOMAIN

A Role of Administrators. Administrators arecritical to the successful implementation oftechnology in an educational setting.Administrators at all levels should beinvolved in decisions about technology.

1 Superintendents play a key role intechnology implementation throughassignment of staff and long-range planningfor technology...

2 The superintendent needs to be supportiveof new instructional use of technology butleadership can also come from the specialeducation director, the building principal, orother central office staff.

3 Administrators have an important role incommunicating the district's or school'svision and providing tangible support for itsrealization...

4 At the administrative level a positiveattitude about experimentation and givingstaff the freedom to fail are important forexpanding technology use...

5 If administrators have an outcomeorientation this will make the neededchanges in rules and standard procedureseasier to recognize and implement.

6 One contribution that administrators oftenmake to technology use and disseminationis in the careful selection ("handpicking") ofstaff for key roles.

7 Administrators can foster communicationbetween special education and regulareducation on technology issues...

8 When community involvement is importantin the process of technologyimplementation ...administrators have animportant contribution to make informulating that presentation appropriately.Successful implementers have worked veryhard at communicating with the broaderschool community.

B Creating a Philosophy. A missionstatement or statement of educationalphilosophy can unify the staff in all theirefforts. In practice the philosophy ofmeeting children's needs can translate intoteachers introducing a variety of practicesthat incorporate technology in order torespond to the differences in children'sneeds and learning styles.

1 Decisions to implement technology areusually based on a specific instructionalneed that was discerned. Specificstrategies are then developed that areconsistent with the system's overallphilosophy.

2 Good leaders within the school systemknow where they want to go; they have avision that they are able to express.

3 Staffs in districts with promising practicesof technology use were able to articulate ashared philosophy. They fully endorse theirdistrict's overall philosophy...

4 A consistent approach of administratorswhere there is effective use of technologyis to focus on the overall aim: set the goalor the direction but not the specific meansfor reaching it...

5 Planners need to have a future orientation,a recognition that education is more thanthe 3 Rs...

C Creating a Setting. The climate for the4. implementation of technology into

instruction is critical to the ease of itsintroduction and its ultimate success.

1 The administrators and staff that areinvolved in the introduction of technologyto a district need to have a receptivity tonew ideas.

2 Effective implementers have a broadknowledge base and draw together bits andpieces from diverse sources to develop andrefine practices. Use of research basedinformation helps inform the planners andimplementers.

3 Incremental introduction of technology hasa number of advantages...

4 The leaders of technology development aregiven the freedom to experiment, tocreate...

5 Implementation of technology is aided by aproblem solving orientation to the processof teaching: a need is identified, teachersprovide insight into a possible solution.

6 People at all levels of the organization needto work together cooperatively...

7 Cooperation among people at differentlevels is more prominent in the early stagesof planning for technology use...

8 Reinforcement of group process efforts (forexample, participation in committees thatgive direction) is important to successfulimplementation...

9 The school board needs to be informed andsupportive of the integration of technologyinto the school system.

10 Differences in organizational characteristicsof school system (whether centralized orsite-based management) should beaddressed, but technology can beimplemented in either a traditional orrestructured environment.

11 Technology allows for curricular change.Technology is an important tool inrestructuring.

D Communication. Good communication iscritical to the initiation and dissemination oftechnology use in instruction. Goodpractices appear to be linked to a high levelof communication among the staff.

1 Communication of a shared philosophy (andshared responsibility in the decision-making)allow foi the development of sharedpriorities.

2 Committees to focus on technology and itsimplementation in instruction often workbest when composed people who sharesuch interests and are not necessarilyrelated to their formal job titles or roles.

3 Communication is often informal andnonhierarchical.

4 A cadre of involved teachers can share theirknowledge and enthusiasm about good orinnovative practices and promote their useby other staff...

5 Cross-departmental collaboration isimportant for some applications oftechnology...

6 Fostering opportunities for networking willallow individuals in many roles andlocations to share information.

E Planning for Technology. Implementingtechnology into the instruction in a schoolor district should consider all the resourcesthat are needed and should consider thetiming of all these elements.

1 Resources don't just mean equipment. It isnecessary to provide the requiredinfrastructure to support technology use(e.g. wiring in a building, phone lines).

2 Timing is critical. There is a need to planfor training, technical assistance, software,and other materials so that they areavailable at the same time the equipment isintroduced...

3 Careful attention in the planning stage mustfocus on who will assume responsibility fortechnical assistance and training and how itwill be offered.

4 Staff development must be planned andbudgeting for...

F Obtaining Funding. Funding is always aconcern of districts wanting to implementtechnology into their curriculum, but thesuccessful programs have not let this issuebe an obstacle.

1 If a positive attitude about the acquisitionof resources is maintained and theadministrators are persistent, a district cantap additional funds.

2 Sometimes resources can be developed byredistributing spending patterns within thecurrent budget.

3 Successful districts have been creative inidentifying internal and external funding.

4 Community-based support can be accessedto increase the funds available or to receiveservices or equipment...

5 Careful planning and research can make thedistrict's money go further when makingexpenditures for technology.

II MATERIAL RESOURCES

A Capabilities of the Technology. Specifichardware and software purchases becomeless of a focus if the first consideration isthe instructional need to be met.

37

38

1 Practices are often relatively platformindependent. Districts need to recognizethis and not get caught up in the glitz,purchasing the latest or most heav4ymarketed equipment...

2 Technical obsolescence is inevitable.Technically obsolete equipment may beadequate for meeting the original (or other)educational needs...

3 The level of technology (high vs. low) is nota predictor of its potential educationaleffectiveness...

B Efficient Equipment Use. There arenumerous mechanisms to make efficientuse of equipment required for theintroduction of technology into thecurriculum.

1 If the process begins by identifying needs,then it is possible to establish those whichcan be met by use of older equipment.

2 The use of hardware and software can bemonitored and reallocated to otherprograms and teachers if they are not beingused...

3 Equipment can be shared. It is notnecessary to retain equipment for a singlepurpose.

4 Using equity as a means of allocatingmaterial resources does not always producethe most efficient use of technology. Analternate approach is to create a criticalmass of equipment around interestedstaff...

5 Selecting the right person to assist inmaking decisions about hardware andsoftware acquisition enables better choicesto be made.

6 Technology specialists can aid inmaximizing the application of materialresources, particularly in keeping equipmentrunning or adapting in-house materials toperform required functions.

III HUMAN RESOURCES

A Staff Role. Human resources are criticalto successful implementation and continueduse of a practice.

38

39

1 Roles need to be restructured so thathuman resources are available to supporttechnology use...

2 Cross-fertilization among technology usersis important...

3 Positions need to be developed to supportthe integration of technology into thecurriculum...

4 For teachers to become active users oftechnology and begin to think of uses toincorporate into their classrooms, it is agood idea to introduce more genericapplications first...

B Technology Coordinator Position. Creationof a technology coordinator/specialist role isextremely important to successfulimplementation of technology in a school ordistrict.

1 Centralization of technical knowledge isnecessary in the early stages ofimplementation...

2 There is a need for on-site troubleshootingsupport; it is a subset of technicalassistance...

3 Technology coordinators need to begeneralists and to provide a teacherperspective in delivering technicalassistance and other support.

4 The individual chosen for the technologycoordinator role should have enoughlatitude to respond to requests, exercisecreativity, and be available for problemsituations.

5 A key technology person for specialeducation can access additional resourcesneeded to meet the needs of specificstudents...

C Technical Assistance. Technical assistancemust be readily accessible if technology isto be successfully implemented into aschool or a district.

1 A good deal of staff development takesplace in the offering of on-the-spot (in theclassroom) technical assistance.

39

40

2

3

The staff needs to feel that technicalassistance is readily available to them...The background and personality of theperson providing the technical assistance isessential to his/her effectiveness...

D Training. A carefully designed program forstaff development is an essentialcomponent in the planning andimplementation of technology use in theclassroom.

1 lnservice training is valuable to the extentthat is appropriate to teachers' needs andinterests...

2 Staff will be willing to participate in usefultraining without compensation...

3 Successful inservice training can beconducted by in-house personnel whounderstand the philosophy, goals, andinstructional context of the participatingstaff.

4 Buying outside expertise should lead toincreased in-house expertise...

5 Using teachers to model teaching withtechnology is an important part of staffdevelopment.

IV CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

A Teachers. Successful implementation oftechnology into the curriculum is based onmaximizing teachers' effectiveness indeveloping instructional uses, applyingthem to the classroom, and disseminatingrelevant experiences to others.

1 It is more important to get technology intothe hands of teachers so they can integrateit into their activities and the curriculumrather than to give it immediately tostudents...

2 The most effective teachers forincorporating technology were those whohad receptivity to new ideas andpossibilities to help educate children, andwho were employing many ideas toimprove instruction.

40

41

3 Working with technology often promotesteacher renewal...

4 Those involved in technologyimplementation never seem to feel thatthey are all done...

5 Enthusiastic staff, who get positivereinforcement from supervisors, are oftenwilling to assume responsibility and spendmore time to support technology use...

6 Teachers who are actively experimentingand implementing technology need to knowthat their opinions, experiences, andexpertise are valued.

B The Classroom. The use of technology inregular and special education classes has aprofound impact on the on the classroomand the way learning takes place.

1 When technology is effectively incorporatedinto instruction it is often because thetechnology was not seen as "the answer;"it is viewed as a tool.

2 Students and teachers are learning togetheras a natural consequence of technologyuse, and this changes the role of theteacher in the classroom.

3 Students become more active andenthusiastic learners in the classroom.

4 Some of the best technology applications inthe classroom allow for variations inteaching styles, differences in students...

5 Focusing on practices for the classroomand overall objectives can promotereceptivity to use of various forms oftechnology...

6 Technology can assist in fuller inclusion ofstudents with disabilities in mainstreamprograms.

7 Use of new media and technologies ininstruction can help students with learningdifferences to succeed...

8 Technology is recognized as a tool for one'slifetime...



A number of dissemination activities includedthe use of videotape and teleconferencetechnologies.

4142