Levels of Technology Implementation
A Framework for Measuring
Classroom Technology Use
By Christopher Moersch
Since the introduction of the Apple IIe computer
in the early 1980s, the term "technology" has represented a broad
range of interests and has been the subject of numerous interpretations.
In school systems nationwide, technology has been the focus of curriculum
renewal projects and school funding debates. It has been the rallying
cry for leading many school districts into the 21st century.
Our
fascination with technology stems, in large degree, from its ambiguity
within existing paradigms. Does technology represent things, like
computers, modems, pencils, microscopes, and televisions; words
or ideas, like "progress" and "change"; processes, like animal breeding
and voting; or delivery systems, like expert systems and novice
systems? Each perspective on technology has its unique attributes
and leads the individual to different conclusions and implementation
strategies.
Attempts
in the early 1980s to bring technology into education involved the
creation of computer literacy classes at the elementary and secondary
levels. From region to region, these courses were quite similar
in their offeringsthey taught students about the parts of the computer,
keyboarding fundamentals, word processing, drill-and-practice applications,
and introductory programming. Even with the exponential advances
in electronic technology, their legacy can still be found today
in the guise of integrated learning systems and central word processing
and remediation labs.
As
one observes the current uses of computer technology nationwide,
a few distinct patterns emerge.
- Staff
development opportunities for teachers to explore the potential
of computer technology are oftentimes insufficient and misdirected.
- Most
computer technology is used for isolated activities unrelated
to a central instructional theme, concept, or topic.
- The
use of the computer is often one step removed from the classroom
teacher.
- Technology
is used to sustain the existing curricula rather than serve
as a catalyst for change.
- The
majority of district or site technology plans do not establish
a significant link between the need for technology and identifiable
instructional priorities (e.g., emphasizing higher order thinking
skills or restructuring the science and mathematics curriculum).
Instead, they emphasize a need to meet a vaguely defined computer/student
ratio or establish districtwide local area networks.
At
best, the role of technology has complemented the conventional instructional
curriculum and its corresponding emphasis on expository teaching,
traditional verbal activities, sequential instructional materials,
and evaluation practices characterized by multiple-choice, short-answer,
and true-or -false responses.
When
planning staff development targeting classroom integration of technology
(e.g., spreadsheets, graphing, telecommunications), two funda mental
assumptions are often made about the educational practitioners attending
such sessions:
- Participants
are easily able to make connections between the technology they
have available and their instructional curricula.
- Participants
are ready and willing to initiate changes in their instructional
practices.
Oftentimes,
neither assumption is valid. These staff development sessions often
lead to nonuse or low levels of use of the technology by classroom
teachers because the technology-based intervention neither reflects
the instructional level of the teacher (Moersch, 1994) nor addresses
fundamental self-efficacy issues.
Self-efficacy
theory suggests that individuals with a low level of self-efficacy
will often choose a level of innovation that they believe they can
handle, which may or may not be the best or most effective option.
Conversely, those individuals with high levels of self-efficacy
are most inclined to accept change and choose the best option. Olivier
and Shapiro (1993) identified self-efficacy as a major predictor
of adoption of innovation.
Levels
of Technology Implementation
We have
attempted to create a conceptual
framework that measures levels of technology implementation, or LoTi,
so that we can assist school districts in restructuring their staff's curricula
to include concept/process-based instruction, authentic uses of technology,
and qualitative assessment. LoTi is aligned conceptually with the work of Hall,
Loucks, Rutherford, and Newlove (1975); Thomas and Knezek (1991); and Dwyer,
Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1992).
In
the LoTi framework, we propose seven discrete implementation levels
teachers can demonstrate, ranging from Nonuse (Level 0) to Refine
ment (Level 6). As a teacher progresses from one level to the next,
a series of changes to the instructional curriculum is observed.
The instructional focus shifts from being teacher-centered to being
learner-centered. Computer technology is employed as a tool that
supports and extends students' understanding of the pertinent concepts,
processes, and themes involved when using databases, telecommunications,
multimedia, spreadsheets, and graphing applications. Traditional
verbal activities are gradually replaced by authentic hands-on inquiry
related to a problem, issue, or theme. Heavy reliance on textbook
and sequential instructional materials is replaced by use of extensive
and diversified resources determined by the problem areas under
study. Traditional evaluation practices are supplanted by multiple
assessment strategies that utilize portfolios, open-ended questions,
self -analysis, and peer review.
Implications
for District Technology Expansion
As
David Dwyer (1992) has noted, "The use of technology does not guarantee
fundamental change in the teaching-learning process and consequently
in learning outcomes." Other variables, including organizational
leadership and structure, the teacher's role in the restructuring
process, and the curriculum itself, impact the entire school restructuring
process, including instructional uses of technology (Thomas &
Knezek, 1991).
- As
school districts prepare their technology expansion plans, we
offer some basic recommendations based on our work with the
LoTi framework. District planning for technology should:
- Emphasize
staff development because of the incremental and personal nature
of innovation adoptions. Existing allocations for staff development
are insufficient for districtwide changes in teachers' instructional
curricula to maximize the capabilities of the new technologies.
- Emphasize
front-end analysis directed at linking proposed technology expansion
with long-range instructional priorities.
- Use
technology to restructure science and mathematics curricula
to reflect Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the NCTM Standards.
The ability for technology to cut across curriculum barriers
through the seamless integration of telecommunications, multimedia,
and related technology -based tools helps dissolve existing
boundaries that define the existing curricula (Thomas &
Knezek, 1991).
- Incorporate
a variety of measures to justify the money spent on technology
from sources such as bond levies, state and federal Eisenhower
allocations, and district funds. Such measures might include
LoTi, school dropout rates, student attitudes about school,
test scores, and student achievement in areas seldom assessed
by conventional means. These areas might include computer use,
effective communication, social awareness and confidence, independence,
problem solving, and civic responsibility (Dwyer, 1992).
- Include
inservice opportunities for site administrators to develop annual
technology plans consistent with district priorities for technology
implementation and student performance standards. Research has
documented that the actions and interests of the building principal
have made a significant difference between effective and ineffective
implementation of program change (Berman & McLaughlin, 1977;
McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978).
The
LoTi framework is currently being field-tested throughout the United
States. In its current form, the framework can provide a fair approximation
of teacher behaviors related to technology implementation. Documenting
such behaviors can aid in designing future interventions that support
the expanded use of technology as well as concept/process-based
instruction and qualitative assessment practices.
Christopher Moersch, National Business Education Alliance, PO Box
61, Corvallis, OR 97339; chris@learning-quest.com
References
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs
supporting educational change. Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining
innovations. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Dwyer, D. C. (1992). Comments for the national education goals
panel. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1992). The
evolution of teachers' instructional beliefs and practices in high
-access-to-technology classrooms, first–fourth year findings.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow.
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L ., & Newlove, B.
W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing
innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1),
52–56.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development
and school change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 69–93.
Moersch, C. (1994). Labs for learning: An experiential-based
action model. Corvallis, OR: National Business Education Alliance.
Olivier, T. A., & Shapiro, F. (1993). Self-efficacy and computers.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 81–85.
Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. (1991). Facilitating restructured
learning experiences with technology. The Computing Teacher,
18(6), 49–53. Copyright © 1995, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education).
All rights reserved.
|
