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

  • 8,211 views
Uploaded on

Abstract (Summary) …

Abstract (Summary)
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.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
8,211
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Action Plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School DistrictTo Improve Teachers Integration of Technology into the Classroom Monica D.T. Rysavy Wilmington University
  • 2. UMI Number: 3332697 INFORMATION TO USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copysubmitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations andphotographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorizedcopyright 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
  • 3. 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. RysavyI certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academicand professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation forthe 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 CommitteeSigned: i^j. /• <QA— Lewis L Atkinson III, Ed.D., Member of Dissertation CommitteeSigned: <§s&Ut/* /ffp/^j^jS*? Bonnie Meszaros, Ph.D., Member of Dissertation CommitteeSigned: Betty J. Caffo, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs ii
  • 4. DedicationThis work is dedicated to my mother, Dr. Margaret R. Prouse, whose encouragementnever wavered and whose proofreading ability is without equal. iii
  • 5. AcknowledgementsI wish to acknowledge all of the many contributions of the survey participants in thisstudy. In particular, I would like to thank the teachers at St. Georges Technical HighSchool who participated in the pilot program. iv
  • 6. Table of ContentsDedication iiiAcknowledgements ivList of Figures viiiAbstract ixChapter 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
  • 7. 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) 35III. Technology Professional Development Plan 50 Technology Professional Development Pilot Program Description 50 Pilot Program Week 1 53 Pilot Program Week 2 53 Pilot Program Week 3 54 Pilot Program Week 4 55 Pilot Program Week 5 55 Pilot Program Week 6 56 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
  • 8. Train the Trainer Model 73 Methods and Timeline of Delivery 74 STARS Program Topics 74 Evaluating the STARS Program 76 Summary of STARS Program 77Works Cited 78Appendix 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
  • 9. List of FiguresFigure 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
  • 10. Abstract The New Castle County Vocational Technical School District (NCCVT) iscomprised of four high schools throughout New Castle County - Delcastle TechnicalHigh School, Howard Technical High School, Paul M. Hodgson VocationalTechnical High School, and St. Georges Technical High School. The NCCVTSchool District is one of three vocational technical school districts in the State ofDelaware. Recent trends in the K-12 educational arena promote increasing technologyintegration in schools. The Delaware Center for Educational Technology has adoptedDr. Christopher Moerschs Level of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi)Survey as its accepted tool for analyzing to what extent K-12 educators areintegrating technology in Delaware schools. This executive position paper examines ex post facto data from LoTi Surveystaken in the NCCVT School district during the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 schoolyears. Survey data were accessed through the secure LoTi Lounge web site. Thispaper also examines LoTi Survey data collected from a six-week pilot programconducted by this researcher. The program involved pre and post LoTi testing andwas taken by 14 staff members at St. Georges Technical High School. Theobjective of this paper is to determine if a hybrid model of technology professionaldevelopment, to include face-to-face and online learning through Blackboard, is aneffective method of increasing staff members LoTi scores.
  • 11. The findings of this study demonstrate an increase in the pilot programs LoTiscores when compared to the Pre-Pilot program LoTi survey. The Mode LoTi scoreincreased from the Pre-Survey, where participants scored a LoTi Level 1, to the Post-Survey, where participants scored a LoTi Level 3. x
  • 12. 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 technicalhigh schools. This executive position paper will propose methods of improvingteachers technology integration skills through a sustained professional developmentaction plan for the New Castle County Vocational Technical School District(NCCVT). It is helpful to define the concept of instructional technology as it applies tothis population. Heinich, et al. adapted John Kenneth Galbraiths definition oftechnology, applying it to instruction, and defined instructional technology "as theapplication of our scientific knowledge about human learning to the practical tasks ofteaching 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 revolutionwhich can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook, andblackboard" (p. 6). New Castle County Vocational Technical School District teachers technologyintegration skills have been identified as lacking through data collected fromconfidential responses to the online Level of Technology Implementation Frameworksurveys (LoTi) that were administered in the District during 2004 and 2007. Thepurpose of administering this online survey to staff was to accurately measure 1
  • 13. 2 authentic classroom technology use in the District (National BusinessEducation Association [NBEA], LoTi Framework, 2006).Data collected from the2004 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 0Data 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 thatin order to recognize a dramatic gain in LoTi levels, the District must investigatealternate methods of professional development.Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to analyze the LoTi data from surveys conductedin 2004 and 2007, as well as to assess additional LoTi survey data results from thespring 2008 pilot program conducted by the researcher to determine what technologyintegration skills NCCVT teachers are most lacking, and then to propose a
  • 14. 3professional development plan to meet the technology integration needs of NCCVTteachers. The assessment goal for the technology professional development plan willbe to increase the LoTi scores for staff in the NCCVT school district. Over the past three years, all technology professional development offeringshave been planned to improve LoTi scores. However, those offerings focused onsoftware training and not the integration of technology into the classroom. As theLoTi Survey assesses the "use oftechnology as a tool within the context of student based instruction with a constantemphasis on higher order thinking" (NBEA, LoTi Framework, 2006, p. 1), it is theresearchers belief that the district will not recognize a dramatic increase in the staffsLoTi levels until the technology professional development offerings are aligned withthe goals of the LoTi Survey.Need for the Study The need for this paper is driven by the 2004 and 2007 LoTi Survey resultsthat were conducted in the NCCVT School District. The 2007 study indicated that allstaff would benefit from additional technology integration training because almosthalf 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 memberswere in need of additional technology integration training to increase their skills tothe average level of 3 (LoTi Lounge).
  • 15. 4 The need for this paper is also driven by the 2008 pilot technology programconducted by the researcher. The program was designed to meet teachers technologyneeds as assessed by the 2004 and 2007 LoTi surveys in an online professionaldevelopment program utilizing the Blackboard course management system.Educational Technology: A Brief History It is generally held by the education community that technology integration isa relatively new practice. That is not entirely accurate. While the methods teacherscan use today to integrate technology are certainly different as opposed to in the early1900s, research shows that teachers have been using various modes of technologysupport 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 andearly cultures invented pictographs or sign writing to record and transmitinformation" (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 EducationAssociation (NEA), was established in 1923. The purpose for the formation of thisdivision was to research the potential of visual media—particularly slides and motionpictures—in schools, colleges, and university extension divisions. Harry BruceWilson, Superintendent of Schools, Berkeley, CA was named as the first president.Two other organizations outside the NEA, the National Academy of VisualInstruction (NAVI) and the Visual Instruction Association of America (VIAA), which
  • 16. 5started between 1916 and 1922, were already working to give voice to the movementof 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 jobplacement for its members, as well as solidifying the support behind the use of theterm "visual instruction" as the name for the field (AECT, 2001). As the United States entered the Great Depression in 1932, it becameimpossible to financially sustain three separate organizations focused on VisualInstruction. After several rounds of negotiation, all were merged into one neworganization, maintaining the DVI name. During the 1930s, membership grew fromjust over 100 individuals, to over 600 members (AECT, 2001). Training of pre-service teachers in Visual Instruction began during the 1930sas well. The DVI also helped to assist in-service teachers to begin integrating newmedia into their lessons. The most popular topics in visual instruction courses in1932 (AECT, Consolidation Period, 2001) were: • philosophy and psychology of visual instruction • motion pictures • lantern slides • projector operation • stereographs • photographs
  • 17. 6 • exhibits • field trips (p. 1) During this time period, DVI members had more debates regardingtechnology pedagogy issues. One of the major issues was regarding the use of newtechnology to record sound to create new sound technology films in place of thepreviously used silent films. Part of the organizations members felt that there was amajor "value of teachers adding their own narration to the film during thepresentation as it was shown". They felt that this "not only personalized the film forthe 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-commercialbroadcasting. The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934, respondedwith a set of reservations in 1938 and another in 1945. "DVI was not a leading forcein 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 radioprograms in the classroom" (AECT, Consolidation Period, 2001, p. 3). Towards the end of the 1930s, as their scope began to spread beyond visualmedia, 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
  • 18. 7more 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 IIended, many audio-visual trained men and women returned home and joined theorganization. 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. Withina 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 waschanged from DVI to the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction or DAVI. Teachereducation remained a major focus of the organization. The most popular topics inintroductory 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 makingthe organizational structure more efficient (p. 7)." Part of this new constitutionencouraged the creation of Department of Audio-Visual Instruction (DAVI)
  • 19. 8subgroups 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 enteredelementary school. These new schools were much more modern than previousschools. Classrooms were now "being outfitted with electrical outlets at the front andback, permanently mounted projection screens, and shades or blinds for roomdarkening" (AECT, Post-War Growth Period, 2001, p. 7). With this new hardwareand materials brought a demand for technical and pedagogical support, which wasprovided by the building and district audio-visual coordinator. These additionalpositions further increased membership in DAVI. Teacher education continued to be a strong focus for DAVI. The mostpopular topics in introductory educational media courses in 1957 (AECT, Post-WarGrowth Period, 2001) were: • equipment operation • equipment selection • equipment utilization • evaluation of materials • history and philosophy of educational media • 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 interestin the education of its youth for the first time. This was as a result of the creation of
  • 20. 9Sputnik I by the Soviets in 1957. "The achievement of this technological marvel by anation other than the U.S. led political leaders to conclude that there must be a braingap that needed to be filled" (AECT, Federal Aid Boom Period, 2001, p.l). Thisresulted in the passing of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 whichprovided funding for equipment, materials, research, and college scholarshipsintended to improve the nations competence in math, science, and modern foreignlanguages. One of the most successful activities that were created as a result of theNDEA was the Summer Media Institutes. During the summers of 1965 and 1966,seventy-two institutes were held for educational media specialists, attended by over2,700 participants (about 38 participants per institute). Fifty institutes wereconsidered basic and provided entry level skills in preparation and use of media.Twenty two institutes were considered advanced and provided more advanced skillsto school personnel who already had basic media skills. The most direct impact ofthese summer institutes was increased membership in DAVI. The organization sawan 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 Commissiondetermined that the term "audiovisual communications" should be the central conceptof the field. They defined it as "that branch of educational theory and practice
  • 21. 10primarily concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learningprocess" (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 • equipment operation • evaluation of materials • production of non-photographic materials • communication theory • history and philosophy of educational media • audio production • systems approach • photographic production (p. 5) In 1961, the DAVI became the Association for Educational Communicationsand Technology (AECT) as a result of the reorganizations taking place at this timewithin the NEA. With this new name, the organization was now independent of theNEA, and was internally reorganized. By the middle of the 1970s AECT had ninedivisions (AECT, 2001): • Educational Media Management • Instructional Development • Industrial Training and Education • Information Systems
  • 22. 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 allprerecorded audio was sold on cassettes. The videocassette player-recorder alsobecame a standard home appliance during the 1970s (AECT, 2001). The position of audio visual director in elementary and secondary schoolsbegan to decline at this time. This was, in part, a result of technologicaladvancement, but more so for economic reasons. Technological equipment becamelighter, more portable, and more reliable. Less physical strength and expertise wasrequired to transport and set up AV equipment. Economic factors were moresignificant to this decline, however, because after the period of lavish federal supportfor educational media in the 1960s came a major national recession in the early 1970sthat forced deep cuts in federal and state education funding (AECT, 2001). Budget cuts forced schools to make staffing reduction decisions at thebuilding level and, when faced between keeping an AV Director or a SchoolLibrarian, they were increasingly choosing to keep the librarian (required foraccreditation). At times the librarians title was changed to "school media centerdirector" (AECT, Independence and Dispersion Period, 2001, p. 3). With thischange, administrators often focused just on the handling of equipment and materials,
  • 23. 12not on the consulting role played by AV directors as they worked with teachers intheir classrooms to improve instruction" (p. 3). Membership in AECT decreasedduring this time. In 1972, AECT dropped the audiovisual label and fully embraced theeducational technology term. They adopted a new definition for their organization:"Educational technology is a field involved in the facilitation of human learningthrough the systematic identification, development, organization and utilization of afull 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, theterm educational technology was more clearly defined as "a complex, integratedprocess, involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organization, for analyzingproblems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to thoseproblems, involved in all aspects of human learning" (AECT, Independence andDispersion Period, 2001, p. 6). During the 1970s, the most popular topics in introductory educational mediacourses (AECT, Independence and Dispersion Period, 2001) were: • equipment operation • utilization and selection of materials • production of non-photographic materials • evaluation of materials • audio production
  • 24. 13 • communication theory • systems approach • video production • photographic production (p. 8) In the 1980s, AECT experienced a major crisis. It had an ambitious agendaand significant accomplishments but was struggling with a rather large overhead,declining membership (from 11,000 in 1970 to 5,600 in 1980), reduced revenue anddeclining attendance at their annual organization convention (AECT, 2001). In hopes of improving their future, the board of directors chose not to renewthe contract of then current executive director, Howard Hitchens, placing Charles VanHorn, the deputy executive director, in the position of acting association managerwhile AECT searched for a new executive director. They also decided to no longerrun their own convention but to join the National Audiovisual Association (NAVA) atits January 1983 convention in New Orleans, sharing NAVAs trade show,COMMTEX International. Finally, the Board decided to reduce the organizationsstaff in an effort to improve their cash flow problems (AECT, 2001). The 1980s brought the beginning boom of the computer period. IBMdeveloped its first mass marketed personal computer and Time Magazine chose thecomputer as its "Man of the Year." Apple introduced its Macintosh computer twoyears later. From that point on, the educational technology field was dominated byefforts to digitize everything audiovisual (AECT, Computer Impact and DownsizingPeriod, 2001, p. 1).
  • 25. 14 In 1994, AECT adopted a new strategic plan, the Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.During this time the organization also adopted yet another definition: "InstructionalTechnology 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 scopeto attract more teachers, school and district media specialists, professors and graduatestudents of instructional technology, corporate instructional designers, militarytraining designers, and multimedia developers as members. As the twentieth centurycame to a close the AECT was altered from its original composition of schooladministrators and school visual instruction coordinators, but it continued to helppeople learn more efficiently and effectively through the use of the best technologiesavailable at the time (AECT, 2001).
  • 26. Chapter IITechnology Standards for Teachers, Administrators, and Students Since the 1990s, Departments of Education across the United States have beenestablishing technology-related standards for teachers. As of 1999, twenty-two statesreported that they had in place, or were in the process of establishing, technology-related standards for pre-service teachers (Lemke & Shaw, 1999). According to thereport, among those states with established requirements, "six report that therequirements consist of technology-related coursework; three report that teachersmust demonstrate technology competencies to fulfill the requirement; and fourrequire students to complete technology-related coursework and to demonstratetechnology competencies to fulfill the requirement" (Lemke & Shaw, 1999, p. 9) . Asof this writing, Delaware does not currently have technology-related standardsrequirements 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 forteachers and administrators since the 1999 report. There has been a major increasefrom four to forty-five states indicating that they had technology-related standards forpracticing teachers, and from zero to thirty-six states reporting technology-relatedstandards 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
  • 27. 16related standards for students. At the time of the reports publication, nine were in theprocess of developing technology-related standards for students. According to the 1999 report, only nine states required high schools studentsto demonstrate technology competency to graduate. Delaware was one of the nine andit continues to require each high school student to successfully complete one credit incomputer literacy in order to graduate (Lemke & Shaw, 1999). The 2007 State Technology Report, a supplement to the 10th edition ofTechnology 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 requiredfor certification or recertification. In Delaware, an instructor is not required todemonstrate proficiency in the standards to obtain a teaching certificate or to becomerecertified to teach. The report also states that 36 states have technology-related standards foradministrators. Delaware also has technology-related standards for administrators,but does not include these standards in the administrator-certification orrecertification requirements. The 2007 State Technology Report also noted that forty-eight states hadestablished technology-related standards for students. Despite this increase in statesestablishing technology-related standards for students, only four states test studentsspecifically on these standards separately from a technology course. Delaware is notone of them.
  • 28. 17 Overall, there has been an improvement in technology-related standards forstudents 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-termcommitment that begins with the decision to pursue a career in education andcontinues, through a combination of formal and informal learning opportunities, forthe duration of a career" (The CEO Forum, 1999, p. 10). Over the past twenty years,teachers professional development has been consistently discussed in variousprofessional journals and articles and often highlighted in governmental reports asbeing the "single most important step towards the infusion of technology intoeducation" (McMillian Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003, p. 12). The Federal Office of Technology Assessment conducted a report series inwhich they stressed the importance of expanding and improving professionaldevelopment opportunities for teachers seeking to improve their use of technology inthe classroom (McMillian Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003). "By the mid- to late1990s, the reports increasingly emphasize the need for enhanced professionaldevelopment opportunities, incentives, state certification requirements, pre-servicecurricula, and inservice programs (p. 13). The National Center for Education
  • 29. 18Statistics (NCES) conducted a study in 2000 and found that approximately 20% ofteachers 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 improvingtechnology professional development opportunities, statistically, few teachers seem tobe taking part in these activities. A study conducted by the Milken Exchange onEducation Technology in 1998 concluded that "teachers on average receive less than13 hours of technology training per year, and 40% of all teachers have never receivedany 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 professionaldevelopment focused on integrating the Internet into their curriculum. Of the publicschools survey, 83 percent with Internet access indicated that their school or schooldistrict had offered professional development to teachers in their school. However,only 36 percent of those schools surveyed had 76 percent or more of their teachersattending those development opportunities. This means that while public schoolswere apparently offering professional development sessions, a small number ofschools had a majority of their teachers attending the sessions (National Center forEducation Statistics, 2007). Further data show that despite school administrators indications that they areoffering technology training opportunities, they are not allocating the necessary fundsto support this training. According to the data collected in 2003-2004 by Quality
  • 30. 19Education Data Inc. (Hayes & Grunwald, 2004) schools projected that they wouldspend $9.30 per student on professional development and integrating technology intothe curriculum. In comparison, they projected that they would spend $68.44 perstudent on instructional hardware, software, tech support, and connectivity. Thisamount is much lower than the Department of Educations recommendation thatschools allocate at least 30 percent of their technology budgets to professionaldevelopment (The CEO Forum, 1999). Carvin (1999) stated, "Most schools onnational average dedicate no more than three percent of their technology budget" (p.2)- Technology funds for school districts by states have been increasing since1995, 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-12districts, and in 1999, $29,776,405 was appropriated. These funds were appropriatedfor 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 thestate. In 1997 Delaware increased the allocation to $12,538,000. Delawaresignificantly reduced its allocation to only $4,607,000 in 1998. No information isprovided as to why this reduction took place. In 1999, the Delaware allocation againincreased to $12,114,000 (Lemke & Shaw, 1999). Delawares financial allocation forpublic school districts in the state was less than half the nationwide allocation offunds for K-12 Educational Technology in 1999.
  • 31. 20 Corporate America, on the other hand, understands that investing inprofessional development with technology is instrumental to improving operations,enhancing results, and ensuring better service. During 1996-1997, technologytraining spending per person increased 74 percent for information services staff and33 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 isprimarily 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 oftechnology training per year. The majority of that time, 7.3 hours, was devoted totraining in software applications. Slightly less time, 6.8 hours, was training in overallcomputer usage, and 5.9 hours in training about integrating technology into theclassroom. Internet use training accounting for 5.8 hours, while multimediaperipherals, online projects, and using e-mail all received 3.2 hours respectively. The
  • 32. 21least amount of time, 1.2 hours, was focused on learning how to use distance learningequipment and infrastructure. (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999). As compared to nationwide statistics, Delaware teachers received less than theaverage technology training for the year, only 8.7 hours. The majority of the trainingfor Delaware teachers was spent equally in software applications and overallcomputer 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 theclassroom. Online projects, multimedia peripherals, and using e-mail all received lessthan 2 hours training each, with 1.9,1.8, and 1.5 hours spent receiving trainingrespectively. The least amount of time, 0.2 hours, was spent learning how to usedistance learning equipment and infrastructure. The same report also rated teachers skill levels in using the technology thatthey had received training for. Teachers were ranked by their district technologycoordinators 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%
  • 33. 22 • Integrating Technology into instruction, 11.3% • Using e-mail, 29.1% Delaware teachers did not score well when ranked by their district technologycoordinators. With the exception of "Using e-mail", in which 15.5% of teachers wereranked at a level 4 or 5, every other training category teachers were ranked between a1 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 (MilkenExchange 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 percentagesof teachers ranked a 4 or 5 in how they use technology: • Administrative Work/Classroom Management (e.g. grade/attendance recording), 44.2%
  • 34. 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 districttechnology coordinators. The "Communicating with Colleagues" use of technologyhad the largest number of teachers ranked at a level 4 or 5, 48.6%. A close secondwas the "Using desktop publishing to teach writing", with 43.9 percent of teachersbeing ranked at a level 4 or 5. The last area in which teachers were ranked at a 4 or 5was the "Administrative work/classroom management" area - 38.5%. According tothe district technology coordinators surveyed, Delaware teachers were not proficientenough in any of the other technology uses (Using simulations when teachingscience, 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 mustcreate a technology plan, track the technology training and use of technology byteachers, and continuously evaluate technology use for improvement. The majority of states, 90 percent, reported that they had officially adopted astate technology plan in 1999. In addition, 68 percent of those states reported thatschool districts were required to submit technology plans for state approval in order
  • 35. 24to 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 inDelaware have a technology plan and the average number of years covered in thetechnology plan is 3.9 (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999). Part of planning for Educational Technology includes tracking the technologytraining and use of technology by teachers that is currently taking place in schooldistricts. In the 1999 Survey of Technology in Schools (Milken Exchange onEducational Technology, p. 15), technology coordinators were asked to what extenttheir districts were tracking the technology training and use of technology byteachers. Nationwide, technology coordinators indicated that 95.8 percent of theirdistricts were tracking "what technology is available at the schools", 94.9 percentwere tracking "the location of the technology in the schools", 49.9 percent weretracking "how teachers use technology", 54.6 percent were tracking "how studentsuse technology", and 70.2 percent were tracking "how much training in technologyyour teachers receive". In Delaware, technology coordinators responded that 100% of their districtswere tracking "what technology is available at the schools" and "the location of thetechnology in the schools". They also indicated that Delaware districts were tracking"how students use technology" at a slightly higher rate than nationwide - 57.1 percentas compared to the nationwide tracking average of 54.6 percent. However, districts in
  • 36. 25Delaware were tracking "how teachers use technology" and "how much training intechnology your teachers receive" at lower rates than nationwide - 42.9 percent foreach as compared to the nationwide tracking averages of 49.9 and 70.2 percentrespectively. Once the technology plan is established, it is important for districts tocontinuously evaluate technology use for improvement. On average, 51percent ofdistricts surveyed in the 1999 Survey of School Technology report, stated that theyevaluated the use of technology in their schools "yearly". Approximately one third,29.3 percent, of districts indicated that they evaluated the use of technology "morethan once per year" and 16.4 percent indicated that they evaluated "less frequentlythan yearly". Only 3.3 percent indicated that they "never" evaluated the technologyuse in their districts (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, p. 16). InDelaware, the majority of districts who responded indicated that the 57.1 percentevaluated their technology use "yearly", which is slightly higher than the nationwideaverage of 51 percent.Teachers Incentives for Technology Training According to the 1999 Survey of Technology in the Schools report, 64.4percent of schools surveyed as compared to 94.6 percent in Delaware "provideteachers with incentives for technological fluency and/or changing teaching methodsto take advantage of available technology" (Milken Exchange on EducationalTechnology, 1999, p. 18). Incentives include the following:
  • 37. 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 schools network In 1999, the most popular incentives for teachers nationwide for usingtechnology is "participation in special workshops", in which 84.2 percent oftechnology coordinators surveyed indicated their districts offered. A close secondwas "additional resources for their classroom" in which 72.2 percent of districtsindicated that this was available. The least popular incentive was the "connection tothe internet from home through schools network" - only 19.2 percent of districtsindicated that this was an offering to teachers incorporating technology (MilkenExchange 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
  • 38. 27offered. Delaware shares the least popular incentive with the nationwide statistics -only 21.6% of districts indicated that a "connection to the internet from homethrough schools network" was an incentive offered to teachers for using technology.In addition, "travel and/or expenses are paid for teachers who complete training" anda "salary supplement" also tied for the least likely incentives to be offered by districtswith 21.6 percent of districts indicating that this was an option (Milken Exchange onEducational Technology, 1999, p. 18).Technology Training Methods "The traditional method of offering professional development has followed atraining paradigm centered on single events, delivered most often in the form ofshort-term in-service sessions and workshops intended to teach discrete skills andtechniques" (Wells, Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional TechnologyProfessional Development, 2007, p. 101). This approach has been questioned as notbeing conducive to technology professional development because as educators beginto experiment with what they learn, new questions will inevitably arise. Without asystem in place for addressing questions when they emerge, educators will beunlikely to try new approaches. In order to be effective today, technology integrationprofessional development "must be based on a new mode of continuous improvementlinked to the program goals of the institution and the performance of teachers andstudents in the classroom" (The CEO Forum, 1999, p. 12). In general, there are two ways to provide professional development: on-sitetraining with a live instructor and web-based training that teachers can take online
  • 39. 28from their computers. It is also possible to provide professional development thatcombines 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), teachersreported the following as barriers to the use of computers and the Internet forinstruction: • 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 werent enoughcomputers, 99% reported having computers available somewhere in their schools in1999, 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 DevelopmentAcademy on Technology Skills, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Technology IntegrationBeliefs and Practices, 2006), can be grouped into four main categories: • Resources
  • 40. 29 • Institutional and Administrative support • Training and experience • Attitudinal or personality factors. Resources Financial resources should be addressed in two areas regarding the integrationof technology: start-up costs and continuous funding. Without a significantcommitment of resources by the school district, it will be impossible for a technologyprofessional plan to be successful. Rodriguez & Knuth (Critical Issue: ProvidingProfessional Development for Effective Technology Use, 2000) indicated that thedistrict must "purchase the type of technical equipment necessary to meet the learninggoals identified and provide for ongoing maintenance and upgrading" (p.6). Theyalso argue that if a district goes the route of purchasing less than required in thebeginning that it will end up costing them more money later on because students andteachers will end up wanting and needing access to additional technologies in thefuture. Continuous funding is crucial to the success of a technology integration planbecause technology costs are usually not one-time costs, instead they are ongoingexpenses. Rodriguez and Knuth (2000) recommend that districts adjust their fundingpriorities to reflect the costs of using technology to improve teaching and learning asa line item in their budgets.
  • 41. 30 Institutional and Administrative Support Lack of support from those in major institutional and administrative roles canpotentially be a barrier to successfully integrating technology. Rodriguez and Knuth(2000) state that administrators "must have a clear vision of technology to supportstudent learning and an understanding of the roles that all school staff must play toachieve that vision" (p. 6). Training and Experience Research indicates that hands-on technology training and use is critical inorder for teachers to feel comfortable integrating technology in their classrooms.Fatemi (1999) found that "teachers who received technology training in the past yearare more likely than teachers who hadnt to say they feel better prepared to integratetechnology 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 professionaldevelopment focused on technology use is important to the subject area they teach.For example, educators may see the value of technology integration in technical areassuch 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 classroomsbecause they believe that it takes the focus away from student learning. They may
  • 42. 31argue that "technology shifts the focus of schools from the content of the informationconveyed to the means of delivery (hardware, software, and networks) (Rodriguez &Knuth, 2000, p. 12) . In the 1999 Survey of Technology in Schools (Milken Exchange onEducational Technology), district technology coordinators were asked to identifytheir teachers attitudes towards technology. They responded on a scale of 1 to 5 inwhich one indicated that "they believe technology is just another fad being mandatedby those above them" and 5 is "a powerful tool for helping them improve studentlearning". Nationwide, 61.7 percent of district technology coordinators indicated thattheir 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 thatall 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 successfulinvolves connectivity. Without a high speed connection in all classrooms, teachersand students will not be able to access many of the multimedia tools they should learnabout. Internet access for schools as a whole has increased significantly since 1997.In the Technology Counts 1997 report (Editorial Projects in Education ResearchCenter, 2007), researchers found that only about two-thirds of U.S. public schools hadInternet connections of any kind, and just 14 percent of those schools had access onclassroom computers. As of 2007, nearly all schools were connected to the Internet,and most instructional computers had high-speed Internet connections.
  • 43. 32 At first glance, Internet connectivity would not appear to be a major issue forDelaware schools. In the fall of 1998, the State announced (eSchool News, 1998) thatit was the first state in the nation to connect all of its public schools and classrooms tothe Internet. As a result of a project launched in February 1996 by the DelawareCenter for Educational Technology (DCET), more than 6,400 classrooms in 181buildings with voice, video, data, and fiber optic lines were wired. This project gaveeach classroom at least one data port connected to the internet through the DelawareEducation Network, a statewide intranet owned and operated by the States Office ofInformation Systems (eSchool News, 1998). The project began as a result of funding from Delawares 21 st Century Fund,created from a major settlement Delaware won from New York State over securitiespayments. $30 million was granted to DCET for the school wiring project (eSchoolNews, 1998). Delaware government officials strongly supported the project. FormerSecretary of Education Iris T. Metts was quoted in the article as saying "it isimperative that we give our students every opportunity to be successful when theiracademic careers have ended and their employment careers begin. Making internetand multimedia technology available in every public school classroom will help usensure that every teacher and every student has access to these exciting and importantlearning tools" (eSchool News, 1998, p. 2). Nationwide, 3.8 students share access to each computer. Students access toinstructional computers nationwide has been increasing since the report began
  • 44. 33tracking in 2000, which means that students had more access to computers with lesssharing. However, in Delaware, access has been fluctuating since 2000, and the ratioof students to computers has been increasing, which means that more students aresharing computers, since 2004 (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center,2007, p. 2). Students technology access when expressed as number of students who sharecomputers for instructional purposes is higher than the national average. Accordingto the 2007 State Technology Report (Editorial Projects in Education ResearchCenter), 5.2 students shared access to each computer across Delaware during the2005-2006 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 opportunitiesare offered through the Instructional Services Department, led by Shelley Rouser,Director of Professional Development. Prior to the 2004-2005 school year, theDistrict did not have a way of assessing teachers current abilities in terms of howwell they personally could use and integrate technology into their classrooms. During the 2004-2005 school year, that changed with the introduction of theLevel of Technology Implementation Framework (LoTi) survey. The LoTi surveywas administered to all district staff in 2004 and 2007. An online survey, results werekept confidential for each survey respondent. At the end of each survey, respondents
  • 45. 34were given a report that highlighted areas in which respondents were currentlyexcelling 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 thetwo-year interval based on the LoTi scores, another recent study further supports theneed for this proposal. Patricia Sine, Director of the Office of EducationalTechnology at the University of Delaware, published a January 2007 report basedupon an audit she conducted regarding the Districts use of technology in allacademic and technical areas (Sine, 2007). In the report, she recommended that theDistrict develop a strategic technology plan to include specific goals, a timeline, andindividuals with responsibility for reaching the goals. Sine conducted this audit at therequest 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 Staffmembers and provide a customized program for overall improvement for all asopposed to current software focused technology offerings. This paper will utilizedata from the LoTi surveys taken by the NCCVT School District Faculty in 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. In addition, the results from this researchers pilot program,conducted in 2008, will be evaluated.
  • 46. 35Level 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 toaccurately measure authentic classroom technology use (NBEA, 2001, p. 1). Thisscale 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 useto 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?"
  • 47. 36 The State of Delaware adopted the LoTi Survey as an assessment tool and reformmodel in the fall of 2003. It is funded by the Delaware Center for EducationalTechnology (DCET) and available to all Delaware Public and Charter schools(NBEA, 2007). According to DCET, the LoTi Survey should be taken by the followingindividuals (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 Spring2005. Staff members responded to the survey by confidentially logging into the LoTiLounge website (http://www.lotilounge.com). Upon beginning the survey, faculty
  • 48. 37members were informed that their questionnaires were specialized based on their jobresponsibilities. Therefore, they selected the appropriate questionnaire from thefollowing 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 opportunityto verify their profile information and make changes if necessary. After completingthe 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 presentedwith their results. These results were divided into four categories: • Personal Computer Use (PCU) • Current Instructional Practices (CIP) • LoTi Level (LoTi) • Target LoTi GoalStaff members then had the option to print their results. For the purpose ofanonymity, individual scores were provided online only to each participant(Instructions for taking the survey, 2007). Districts were provided with aggregatesurvey results through a secure online website. At their discretion, they could then
  • 49. 38target areas of shortfall for consideration in future professional developmentplanning. In the Spring of 2005,185 NCCVT Staff members completed the LoTiSurvey. The Survey measured three critical components related to supporting orimplementing 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, whilePCU and CIP scores are ranked on scales of 0-7. Based upon these responses, the median LoTi level of the NCCVT Schooldistrict 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).
  • 50. 39 NCCVTSchool District 2004-2005 UTi Results INuinbarofStaff > Percent of totalFigure 1. NCCVT School District 2004-2005 LoTi Results (0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 1 reflects that of the 185 staff members that took the 2004-2005survey, the majority, 46 people or 25 percent, scored at a LoTi level 0 (Nonuse) (LoTiLounge). 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 skilllevels with Personal Computer Use (PCU). PCU is defined as "teachers comfort andskill level with using a personal computer" (National Business Education Alliance,
  • 51. 40PCU Framework, 2006, p. 1). PCU scores are ranked The median PCU score ofparticipants 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 LoTiSurvey, the majority of the staff members, 48 people or 26 percent, scored a PCUIntensity 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"
  • 52. 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 CurrentInstructional Practices (CIP) Intensity Level. The CIP Level "assesses classroomteachers 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)
  • 53. 42 Figure 3 reflects that of the 185 staff members who took the 2004-2005 LoTiSurvey, the majority of the staff members scored a CIP Level 4 A CIP Intensity Level4 indicates that (National Business Education Alliance, CIP Framework: IntensityLevel 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 technologyprofessional development sessions offered following the 2005 Survey were inresponse to the Survey data (personal communication, January 7, 2008). The NCCVT School District conducted the same LoTi survey again in thespring of 2007 and 164 NCCVT staff members completed the Survey. Based uponthese responses, the median LoTi level of the NCCVT School district is Level 3(Infusion) on a scale of 0-6 (0-lowest/6-highest) (LoTiLounge).
  • 54. 43 NCCVT School District 2006-2007 LoTi Results H tamber of Staff ^ PercantoftotiJFigure 4. NCCVT School District 2006-2007 LoTi Results(0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 4 reflects that of the 164 staff members who took the 2006-2007 LoTiSurvey slightly less than half, 78 people or 48 percent, scored a LoTi level of 0,1, or2 (LoTi Lounge). The Infusion level implies that the following technology-based tools are beingutilized 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)
  • 55. 44 Data from the 2006-2007 Survey also provided insight into staff membersskill 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) Figure 5 reflects that of the 164 staff members who took the 2006-2007 LoTiSurvey, the greatest number of respondents, 42 people or 26 percent, scored a PCULevel 6, on a scale of 0-7. No participants scored a PCU Level 0. The 2006-2007 LoTi Survey again assessed staff members CurrentInstructional Practices (OP) Intensity Level. The median CIP score was CIPIntensity Level 4. The mode CIP score was also CIP Intensity Level 4.
  • 56. 45 NCCVT School District 2006-2007 CIP Results • Number of Staff «t Percent of totalFigure 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 LoTiSurvey, 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 professionaldevelopment offering entitled the Technology for Teachers series during the 2007-2008 academic year. The purpose of this series of courses was to "facilitate theintegration of technology in appropriate and meaningful ways" (New Castle CountyVo-Tech School District, Technology for Teachers, 2007, p. 1). Two courses wereoffered 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:
  • 57. 46 • Introduction to PowerPoint • Blackboard Basics • Getting Started with ExcelAccording to the Director of Professional Development, Shelley Rouser, the LevelOne course was designed to promote the mastery of skills to meet the standards ofLoTi Levels 1 & 2 (personal communication, December 21, 2007). The Level Two course discussed the following topics: • United Streaming • Webquests • Wikis, Blogs, Podcasts • Advanced BlackboardThe Level Two course was designed to promote the mastery of skills to meet thestandards of LoTi Level 3. Each course was limited to twenty participants. Twotechnology specialists in the district taught the courses. In addition to the Technology for Teachers series, during the 2007-2008school year, Rouser indicated (personal communication, December 21,2007) thefollowing sessions were offered as part of the district professional development planrelative to technology: • Blackboard • Podcasting • 21 st Century Skills • Telephone Doctor
  • 58. 47 • Videoconferencing • Career Cruising These professional development sessions, past as well as current sessions and/orcourses do not focus on the effective integration of technology into the classroom.These sessions primarily focus on the training of teachers in particular softwareprograms. Rouser indicated (personal communication, December 21, 2007) thatcurrent offerings, with the exception of the Technology for Teachers series, areprimarily chosen based on teachers request for certain topics gathered through LoTisurvey (a multiple choice question), or data gathered from feedback from classroomobservations. The NCCVT School Districts instructional priorities for a two-year period oftime, which concluded on June 30, 2007, were stated in a document entitled, TheBlueprint for Success II (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007). This isa 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 statesthat the District had a goal to "Expand Applied Technology." As part of this goal, theDistrict plan stated that it would "provide reliable online network and relatedequipment upgrades for expanding web-based applications, communication, andinstructional technology" (2007, p. 15). According to this document, there were 11 strategies with three Measures ofSuccess. Of the 11 strategies, two addressed the need to increase teacherstechnology integration skills in the district. The first stated that there should be "a
  • 59. 48maximum percentage of teachers at LoTi Level 1: 25%". Another goal brieflyaddressed instructional technology needs: "refocus technology departments workpriorities from hardware/software support to teacher training and instructionaltechnology" (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007, p. 18). Both ofthese strategies are vague and could be subject to various interpretations whendeveloping professional development sessions. More defined strategies would besuggested at the District level to better develop targeted improvements in technologyintegration. Following the Districts Blueprint for Success II document, are the BalancedScorecard/Strategic Plan reports (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007).These reports include a Technology Plan which states the District will "providereliable on-line network and related equipment upgrades for expanding web-basedapplications in communications and instructional technology" (2007, p. 1). The Technology Plan has four strategic objectives. Only the fourth includesinstructional technology: "Create a Strategic Plan for Technology that incorporatesincreased levels of instructional technology". The LoTi survey is the state assessmenttool for measuring increased levels of instructional technology for Districtimprovement. The outcome or process measures of this objective are the number ofinstructional technology professional development initiatives and a completedStrategic Plan (New Castle County Vo-Tech School District, 2007, p. 1). Theseprofessional development initiatives should be focused on the LoTi assessmentmeasures and target those areas noted for improvement.
  • 60. 49 In conclusion, as demonstrated by the review of literature regarding nationaland local technology integration professional development, there is a critical need forNCCVT teachers to receive customized instruction on how to integrate technology intheir teaching environment. As studies have indicated, connectivity does not appearto be the issue, as most schools are connected to the internet at this point. The issueappears to be the lack of professional development offerings in schools that arefocused on the integration of technology in the classroom.
  • 61. Chapter IIITechnology Professional Development Pilot Program Description A six-week pilot program, entitled "Podcasting" was conducted by thisresearcher at St. Georges Technical High School. Permission to conduct the programwas granted by the principal of St. Georges Technical High School, Teresa Villa,Director of Professional Development, Shelley Rouser, and Superintendent of theNCCVT School District, Dr. Steven Godowsky. The purpose of conducting the pilot program was to determine whether or notstaff members can increase their overall LoTi scores (including LoTi, PCU, and CIPscores) by participating in a hybrid model of technology professional development, toinclude-face-to-face and online learning through Blackboard. This hybrid model hasnot been tried by this District. According to the Literature Review, this model has ademonstrated measure of success (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000). The topic "Podcasting" was selected for the program by the researcher forseveral reasons. First, it is a professional development classroom workshop taught bythis researcher before. Second, it is a personal interest of the researcher, and theresearcher has personally experienced the multiple uses of podcasting in variouscurriculums. The district was not currently pursing ways of training or incorporatingpodcasting with staff. Third, there has been expressed interest by District teachers inreceiving training for Podcasting as the last two Podcasting workshops taught by theresearcher 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
  • 62. 51were not based on a hybrid model would lend itself to the researchers hybrid modelgiven the researchers personal experience with Podcasting. In addition, theresearchers experiences with online learning (as a participant and teacher), led theresearcher to believe that the topic could be successfully taught to teachers using ahybrid learning utilizing both in-person and online instruction. Finally, Podcastingfalls under the category of "multimedia" which is included in most of the questionsasked by the LoTi Survey. The dates of the pilot program were Monday, February 25, 2008 throughFriday, April 4, 2008. The pilot program was advertised (See Appendix A) toteachers, administrators and specialists approximately one-week prior to thebeginning of the program. The participants were selected on a voluntary basis andindicated their desire to join the program by e-mailing the researcher to register. Theprogram began with 15 teachers and one specialist. The program was designed to take place primarily online, through the use ofthe NCCVT School Districts Blackboard system. The researcher created the hybridcourse for the program and titled it STARS: Podcasting. STARS stands for"Sustained Technology Application Reaches Students" and was created by theresearcher. 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 DiscussionBoard 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 andend of the program.
  • 63. 52 The beginning "face-to-face" meeting was held Monday, February 25, 2008from 7:35 AM to 7:55 AM in the researchers classroom. The purpose of the meetingwas to welcome participants to the program, describe the purpose of the program, andoutline the activities for the following six weeks. Ten of the registered 16 registeredparticipants attended. The remaining six had a conflict with other meetings andfollowed up with the researcher later that day. During the first week of the program, participants were provided withinformation regarding the LoTi Survey and read a disclosure (See Appendix D) thatexplained the process and purpose of taking the survey as well as informationregarding how the data from the survey would be used for the purposes of this study. Participants acknowledged that they understood their purpose for taking thesurvey, the method in which the survey will be taken, and how the survey resultswould be used by typing their first and last names in the box below the disclosure andsubmitting it through the Blackboard system. All participants submitted their surveydisclosure 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). Theywere provided with directions on how to register via the LoTi section of thePodcasting online course. After registering with the LoTi Lounge, participants tookthe survey. The survey consisted of 50 questions and took approximately thirtyminutes for participants to complete. Most completed the survey without assistance.
  • 64. 53Two 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 whata Podcast is. They also watched a training video about setting up NewsGator Onlineaccounts (created by the researcher and posted in Blackboard), as well as searchedand subscribed to Podcasts using NewsGator. Finally, participants read a brief articleabout Podcasting in Education (See Appendix E), discussed the article with theirfellow Podcasting peers, and started thinking about ways they could use a Podcast intheir classroom/environment. Participants were active on the discussion board (SeeAppendix F) this week and shared ideas as well as questions regarding Podcastingwith 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 additionalinformation. The researcher personally visited five participants at the school toprovide assistance with various aspects of the Week 1 lesson. Pilot Program Week 2 During Week 2 of the program, participants planned a Podcasting lesson touse during Week 3 with their high school students. They prepared for their lesson byfinding a Podcast that was already created and used the Podcasting Lesson Plan
  • 65. 54Template (created by the researcher - See Appendix G) to plan for their lesson. Oncefinished, teachers posted their Lesson Plan templates in the Blackboard discussiongroup to share their ideas. During week 2, teachers also shared links to Podcastresources they had found in the Blackboard discussion board. Participants received an e-mail from the researcher at the beginning, middle,and end of the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additionalinformation. The researcher personally visited three participants at the school toprovide assistance with various aspects of Week 2. Pilot Program Week 3 During Week 3 of the program, participants gave their Podcasting lessons totheir students. They reflected on how well the lesson was received by students usingthe "Reflect" section of the Podcasting Lesson Plan Template. They also shared theirimpressions on the lessons with colleagues in the Blackboard Discussion Board. Inaddition, participants were introduced to using Blackboard to share their Podcaststhrough a training packet (see Appendix H) designed to show participants how to setup their own Blackboard course, how to link to external websites with Podcasts, andhow to upload Podcast audio files to their course. Participants received an e-mailfrom the researcher at the beginning, middle, and end of the week to offerencouragement, answer questions, and provide additional information. Theresearcher personally visited two participants at the school to provide assistance withvarious aspects of Week 3.
  • 66. 55 Pilot Program Week 4 During Week 4 of the program, participants learned how to create their ownPodcast using the Audacity software by watching a training video created by theresearcher and posted in Blackboard. Participants planned for their Podcast bycompleting the Podcasting Lesson Plan Worksheet 2 (see Appendix I) and thensharing their worksheets with the other Podcasting participants online through the useof the Discussion Board for Week 4. Participants received an e-mail from the researcher at the beginning, middle,and end of the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additionalinformation. The researcher personally visited three participants at the school toprovide assistance with various aspects of Week 4. Pilot Program Week 5 During Week 5 of the program, participants used feedback from otherPodcasting participants to edit their Podcasting Lesson Plan Worksheet 2. They thenrecorded their Podcasts using the Audacity software. Participants learned how toimport MP3 music files that are legally shareable because they have a CreativeCommons license into Audacity to use as background music for their introduction,transitions, and/or closure to their Podcast. These skills were learned by watching atraining video created by the researcher and posted in Blackboard. Participantsposted their completed Podcasts as MP3 files in the Discussion Board for Week 5 toshare with other participants and receive feedback.
  • 67. 56 Participants received an e-mail from the researcher at the beginning, middle,and end of the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additionalinformation. Pilot Program Week 6 During Week 6, Podcasting Participants gave the Podcasting lesson theycreated to their students. Participants integrated the podcasting technology lesson in avariety of ways. Some chose to share their Podcast by playing the Audio file overtheir laptop or desktop computer with external speakers or through a projectionsystem. Others chose to upload the Podcast to a Blackboard class they had set up andhad students listen to the Podcast by accessing the site. Still others chose to maketheir Podcast a downloadable option so students could add the Podcast to their MP3players, such as to an IPod. Once the Participants had completed their lesson, they shared theirexperiences 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 endof the week to offer encouragement, answer questions, and provide additionalinformation.
  • 68. 57 Summary of the Pilot Program Experience At the conclusion of the hybrid Podcasting Pilot Program, the researcher heldthe last face-to-face meeting with participants to wrap-up the workshop and solicitfeedback from the participants on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 7:35 AM in theresearchers classroom. Of the initially registered 16 participants, 14 participantscompleted the project and took both the Pre and Post Surveys. Two dropped out inthe very beginning due to professional conflicts. Of the 14 participants, 8 attendedthe final meeting. Others were unable to because of conflicts with other meetings. In the final meeting, the researcher led an informal discussion regardingparticipants experiences in the program. Participants all had positive things to sayabout the experience, and when discussing the potential of wide spreadimplementation, they all agreed that they felt it would be a good idea for allclassroom teachers and specialists to participate in a program similar to this. Theonly challenge Participants encountered was finding the time to incorporate yetanother responsibility into their busy lives as educators, which is common with allnew activities for educators. One participant remarked that it must have been difficultfor the researcher to run the program because keeping Blackboard up-to-date, sendingand responding to e-mails, and providing personal assistance on top of running a fullteaching schedule, seemed to take many hours beyond the traditional day. Theparticipant suggested that a designated position be created to oversee the creation ofworkshops, coordinate the delivery, evaluate the assessment and provide support toinstructors to maximize this District Strategic Objective.
  • 69. 58Pilot Program Evaluation The pilot program was evaluated by utilization of the LoTi Survey. Thesurvey was administered in a pre and post format at the beginning and end of theprogram. Use of the LoTi Survey by the researcher for the pilot program was grantedby purchasing access through the National Business Education Alliance.Pre-Pilot Program Survey Results According to the results of the LoTi, 14 participants registered and took thePre-Pilot Survey. The Survey measured three critical components related tosupporting or implementing the instructional use of computers at St. GeorgesTechnical High School: LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation), PCU (PersonalComputer Use), and CIP (Current Instructional Practices) (LoTi Lounge).Participants who dropped the program, 2, did not complete the Survey. Data from the Pre-Pilot Survey indicated that the median score was a LoTiLevel 3 (Infusion) on a scale of 0-6 (0-lowest/6-highest). The Mode LoTi Score wasa Level " 1 " (Awareness) (National Business Education Alliance, 2006, p. 1) whichimplies that The use of technology-based tools is either (1) one step removed from the classroom teacher (e.g., integrated learning system labs, special computer-based pull-out programs, computer literacy classes, central word processing labs), (2) used almost exclusively by the classroom teacher for classroom and/or curriculum management tasks (e.g., taking attendance, using grade book programs, accessing email, retrieving lesson plans from a curriculum management system or the
  • 70. 59 internet) and/or (3) used to embellish or enhance teacher-directed lessons or lectures (e.g., multimedia presentations). Pre-Pilot LoTi Results 6- 5- .4 3 a lumber of Staff M Percent o f frcrta! 2 1:.- 0- Level 0 Leve! 1 Level 2 Lewel 3 Levels Level 4b Level 5 Levelfi N u m b e r o f Staff 0 6 0 4 2 2 0 0 Percent o f t o t a l OK ioii ~" 0» 275* 13% S3X OS OHFigure 7. Pre-Pilot LoTi Results (0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 7 reflects that of the 14 participants who took the Pre-Pilot LoTiSurvey, the majority of the participants, 6 or 40 percent, scored a LoTi Level 1(Awareness). No staff members scored a LoTi Level 0, 2, 5, or 6. Data from the Pre-Pilot Survey also provided insight to participants skilllevels with Personal Computer Use (PCU). The median PCU score of participantswas Intensity Level 5 (Somewhat True of Me Now). PCU Intensity Level 5 indicates that (National Business Education Alliance,2006)
  • 71. 60 the participant demonstrates high skill level with using computers for personal use. Participants at Intensity Level 5 are commonly able to use the computer to create their own web pages, produce sophisticated multimedia products, and/or effortlessly use common productivity applications (e.g., Microsoft Excel, FileMaker Pro), desktop publishing software, and web-based tools. They are also able to confidently troubleshoot most hardware, software, and/or peripheral problems without assistance from technology support staff. Pre-Pilot PCU Results 1 11 i - 1s- 1 1 • 1• 1 z- IS • I• » Number of Staff ^Percent oftota! i 1 1 I • Lh e.s - Pturntreraf Staff I s Level 0 0 Level! 0 • J — 1 1..W Level 2 0 h Level 3 3 2 3 Level 4 Levels 3 Level 6 3 1811 Hi Leve! 7 3 y Percent©fHrtal j 0% 0% m 21* 14* 21% 21tt 2114Figure 8. Pre-Pilot PCU Results (0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 8 reflects that of the 14 staff members who took the Pre-Pilot LoTiSurvey, an equal number of participants, 3 or 21 percent, scored a PCU Level 3, 5, 6,or 7. No participants scored a PCU Level of 0,1, or 2.
  • 72. 61 The mode PCU pre-pilot program score of participants was Intensity Level 7(Very True of Me Now). PCU Intensity Level 7 indicates that (National BusinessEducation Alliance, PCU Framework: Intensity Level 7, 2006, p. 1) the participant demonstrates extremely high skill level with using computers for personal use. Participants at Intensity Level 7 are expert computer users, troubleshooters, and/or technology mentors. They typically are involved in training others on any technology-related task and are usually involved in selected support groups from around the world that allow them access to answers for all technology-based inquiries they may have. The third area that the LoTi Survey assessed is participants CurrentInstructional Practices (CIP) Intensity level. The median CIP score of participantsprior to participating in the pilot program was CIP Intensity Level 4, on a scale of 0-7.The mode CIP score of participants from the pre-pilot program Survey was also a CIPIntensity Level 4.
  • 73. 62 Pre-Pilot GiP Resuts M Percent of rotaf 0 • LevelO level 1 Lewe!2 Level 3 LeveM Leve! 5 Level € Level 7 NumberofStaff 0 1 1 0 1 6 * 1 2 0 Percent o f t o t a ! 054 1% | MS 7% 43S 2S» 14% 0».Figure 9. Pre-Pilot CIP Results. (0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 3 reflects that of the 14 participants who took the Pre-Pilot LoTiSurvey, the majority, six or 43 percent, scored a CIP Intensity Level 4 on a scale of 0-7. No participants scored a Level 0, 2, or 7.Post-Pilot Program Survey Results According to the results of the LoTi, the same 14 participants took the Post-Pilot Survey as who took the Pre-Pilot Survey. The Post-Pilot Survey was identical inquestions to the Pre-Pilot Survey. Data from the Post-Pilot Survey indicated that themedian score was a LoTi Level 3 (Infusion) on a scale of 0-6. The Mode LoTi Scorewas also a LoTi Level 3 (Infusion) on a scale of 0-6 (National Business EducationAlliance, LoTi Framework-Level 3: Infusion, 2006, p. 1).
  • 74. 63 Post-Pilot LoTi Results • Numterof Staff • Percent of totalFigure 10. Post-Pilot LoTi Results (0-lowest/6-highest). Figure 9 reflects that of the 14 participants who took the Post-Pilot LoTiSurvey, the majority, six or 43 percent, scored a LoTi Level 3 (Infusion). Noparticipants scored a Level 0, 4b, or 6. Data from the Post-Pilot Survey also provided insight to participants skilllevels with Personal Computer Use (PCU). The median PCU score of participantswas a PCU Intensity Level 5 (Somewhat True of Me Now) (National BusinessEducation Alliance, 2006). The mode PCU of participants was a PCU Intensity Level6 (Very True of Me Now). PCU Intensity Level 6 (NBEA, PCU Framework:Intensity Level 6, 2006, p. 1) indicates that
  • 75. 64 the participant demonstrates high skill level with using computers for personal use. Participants at Intensity Level 5 are commonly able to use the computer to create their own web pages, produce sophisticated multimedia products, and/or effortlessly use common productivity applications (e.g., Microsoft Excel, FileMaker Pro), desktop publishing software, and web-based tools. They are also able to confidently troubleshoot most hardware, software, and/or peripheral problems without assistance from technology support staff. Post-Pilot PCU Results • Number of Staff * Percent of totalFigure 11. Post-Pilot PCU Results (0-lowest/6-highest) Figure 11 reflects that of the 14 staff members who took the Post-Pilot LoTiSurvey, the majority of participants, 5 or 36 percent, scored a PCU Level 6. Noparticipants scored a PCU Level of 0,1, or 2, or 3.
  • 76. 65 The third area that the LoTi Survey assessed is participants CurrentInstructional Practices (CIP) Intensity Level. The median CIP score of participantsfollowing their participation in the pilot program was CIP Intensity Level 4 (NationalBusiness Education Alliance, CIP Framework, Intensity Level 4, 2006, p. 1). Themode CIP score of participants from the post-pilot program Survey was also a CIPIntensity Level 5 (NBEA, CIP Framework: Intensity Level 5, 2006, p. 1). A CIPIntensity Level 4 indicates that the participants instructional practices tend to lean more toward a learner-based approach. The essential content embedded in the standards emerges based on students "need to know" as they attempt to research and solve issues of importance to them using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The types of learning activities and teaching strategies used in the learning environment are diversified and driven by student questions. Both students and teachers are involved in devising appropriate assessment instruments (e.g., performance- based, journals, peer reviews, self-reflections) by which student performance will be assessed. However, the use of teacher-directed activities (e.g., lectures, presentations, teacher-directed projects) may surface based on the nature of the content being addressed and at the desired level of student cognition.
  • 77. 66 Post-Pilot CIP Results n Number of Staff 8 Percent of total ? 0 - Y """|,,n IIIWIIIIM nv ••Rd* —•KwV JHHT7S1 iiiiniiiiiiimi Level 0 Level 1 I Levels Level 4 ^ Level 5 LeveiS Level 7 PkimbfirofStaff 0 0 j 1 2 5 5 1 0 ! Percent of total 05* 0* ! 7« i « 3S» 3S« 7» OSFigure 12. Post-Pilot CIP Results (0-lowest/6-highest). Figure 3 reflects that of the 14 participants who took the Pre-Pilot LoTiSurvey, an equal majority of participants, five or 36 percent, scored a CIP IntensityLevel 4 or 5. No participants scored a Level 0 , 1 , or 7.Pilot Program Conclusions Based upon the results of the Pre and Post-Pilot program LoTi Surveys, theresearcher has concluded that there has been an overall increase in participants LoTiLevel scores.
  • 78. 67 Comparison of Participants" Pre and Post-Pilot LoTi Results 3 SNum&erOf Staff for Prs-PifcftSurvey $ Nu mtrerof Staff for Post-Pilot Survey Wumfc#ro<fStaff for Post-PltotSuiysifi 0Figure 13. Comparison of Participants Pre and Post-Pilot LoTi Results. (0-lowest/6-highest) As Figure 13 demonstrates, the Mode LoTi score increased from the Pre-Survey, where participants scored a LoTi Level 1, to the Post-Survey, whereparticipants scored a LoTi Level 3. The median score, LoTi Level 3, remained the same for the Pre and Post-Pilotprogram Surveys. In addition, the lower LoTi Levels of 1 and 2 recognized adecrease in participants scoring these levels, while the higher LoTi Levels of 3, 4, and4b, all recognized an increase in participants scoring these levels. Finally, oneparticipant scored a LoTi Level 5 (Expansion). LoTi Level 5 (NBEA, LoTiFramework: Level 5: Expansion, 2006) indicates that
  • 79. 68 Technology access is extended beyond the classroom. Classroom teachers actively elicit technology applications and networking from other schools, business enterprises, governmental agencies (e.g., contacting NASA to establish a link to an orbiting space shuttle via internet), research institutions, and universities to expand student experiences directed at problem-solving, issues resolution, and student activism surrounding a major theme/concept. The complexity and sophistication of the technology-based tools used in the learning environment are now commensurate with (1) the diversity, inventiveness, and spontaneity of the teachers experiential-based approach to teaching and learning and (2) the students level of complex thinking (e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and in-depth understanding of the content experienced in the classroom. Based upon the results of the Pre and Post-Pilot program LoTi Surveys, theresearcher has concluded that participants PCU Level scores remained relativelyconstant.
  • 80. 69 Comparison of Pre and Post-Pilot PCU Results BMumberafStafF for Pre-FitotSurvey ••NumberofStaff for Past~P11otSunrey M u m b s r o f Staff for Pre -Pi l o t Survey Number o f Staff for Past-Pilot SurveyFigure 14. Comparison of Pre and Post-Pilot PCU Results (0-lowest/6-highest). As demonstrated by Figure 14, participants median PCU score remainedconstant. Participants received a median PCU Intensity Level 3 for both the Pre andPost-Program Surveys. Participants mode PCU Intensity Level decreased slightlyfrom a 7 to a 6. After the researcher individually spoke with participants regardingthis section, it was determined that it was possible scores had decreased becauseparticipants had learned how to use new software programs during the Pilot programand might not feel comfortable with them yet.The PCU score assesses "classroom teachers comfort and skill level with using apersonal computer" (NBEA, PCU Framework, 2006, p. 1). Based upon the results of
  • 81. 70the Pre and Post-Pilot program LoTi Surveys, the researcher has concluded thatparticipants CIP Intensity Level scores have slightly increased. Comparison of Pre and Post-Pilot CIP Results • • m Number of Staff for Pre-Pilot Survey ^NumberofStaff far Post-PifcrtSurve • «•" """<*%"§& 111 •" - 1 •" "•P *•£ il ill IRS 0- 1•••J}JE l LewlO level I Level 2 1 IP III] Ks Level 3 Level 4 LeveiS -•M Level* ^—i^^i LevelTj Numbsraf Staff for Prft-PrtotSurvey 0 i c 1 S 4 2 a • Numberof Staff for Post-PilotSurvey 0 0 I 1 5 5 1 0 Figure 15. Comparison of Pre and Post-Pilot CIP Results (0-lowest/6-highest). As demonstrated by Figure 15, while participants median CIP Intensity Levelstayed the same, at Level 4, their mode CIP Intensity Level increased from Level 4 toLevel 5. Overall, the researcher feels that as evidenced by the data collected from thissix-week pilot program that implementing a hybrid professional developmentprogram that includes face-to-face meetings and online work in Blackboard is aviable option for increasing staff members LoTi scores.
  • 82. 71Technology Professional Development Plan Based upon the results from the hybrid professional development pilotprogram conducted by the researcher, and the results to the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007LoTi Survey taken by staff in the NCCVT School District, the researcher hasdeveloped a technology professional development plan for the NCCVT SchoolDistrict. This plan is designed to improve the integration of instructional technologyand thereby achieving the improvement of teachers and administrators overall LoTiSurvey scores (including LoTi, PCU, and CIP). The recommended implementationdate for the plan is for the 2008-2009 school year. The Technology ProfessionalDevelopment Program would be called the STARS program - STARS stands forSustained Technology Application Reaches Students.Groups to Participate in the STARS Program NCCVT staff members would be grouped into three categories for the STARSprogram: Academic Teachers, Vocational Teachers, and Administrators. Academicand Vocational Teachers frequently have very different needs, environments, andequipment access from one another, thus the need for two separate groups. There willbe one Academic and one Vocational group of teachers for each of the four highschools. There would be one group for Administrators district-wide. Across thedistrict there would be eight Teacher groups and one Administrator group
  • 83. 72Employment Needs In order for the STARS Program to be successful, an InstructionalTechnologist would need to be hired to lead the program. The InstructionalTechnologist would be responsible for leading and creating the content for theSTARS Program as well as for designing and developing other online resources andtraining courses for Teachers and Administrators. The Instructional Technologistwould apply knowledge of the principles of instructional technology and design in thehands-on development of new Blackboard-based materials designed to engage usersand achieve learning objectives. Utilizing best practices and incorporating this hybriddelivery program were practical. The Instructional Technologist would review existing resources and providecreative solutions to improve their functionality and appearance and to incorporatemultimedia elements. The Instructional Technologist would collaborate withAcademic and Vocational chairs to provide support in the areas of multimedia use,course management software, and instructional design. As noted in the NCCVT School Districts Balanced Score Card document, ithas been recommended by the District Committee that an instructional technologyspecialist position be requested by June 1, 2008 (New Castle County Vo-Tech SchoolDistrict, 2007). This new position is to utilize the methodology in place and not theenhancements that the researchers pilot program or evaluation of past LoTi surveyshas brought to light.
  • 84. 73Train the Trainer Model In addition, it is proposed that the summer prior to the implementation of theSTARS program, the newly hired Instructional Technologist would work with theTeacher Technology Leaders for the STARS program in the NCCVT school district.Potential leaders would be required to have scored a 6 or 7 on the 2007-2008 LoTiSurvey and demonstrated instructional technology abilities in the district. SelectedTeacher Technology Leaders would receive EPER (Extra Pay for ExtraResponsibilities) pay for their participation. The Teacher Technology Leaders abilities may be demonstrated throughformal and informal observations by administrators, experience in teaching seminarsat professional development days in the district and feedback provided by seminarparticipants, as well as any outside technology certifications obtained by the potentialleader within the past five years. Eight Teacher Technology Leaders will be selected,two for each high school. Every effort should be made to select teacher leaders withthe same job title as those the leader will represent - i.e. an Academic teacher leadershould be selected to run Academic teacher groups, etc...The InstructionalTechnologist will lead the Administrator group. Once the teacher leaders are selected, the Instructional Technologist wouldtrain the Teacher Technology Leaders during the summer preceding the rollout of theSTARS Program. It is extremely important that the Technology Teacher Leadersreceive training before placement in their role of facilitator for their groups in their
  • 85. 74home high schools so that they will feel comfortable with the topics taught and ableto provide assistance when needed to their assigned group.Methods and Timeline of Delivery The STARS program would take place primarily online through the use ofBlackboard courses and will have one scheduled "face-to-face" meeting each quarterfor Academic Teachers, Vocational Teachers, and Administrators at the local highschool for each group. Teacher Technology Leaders would receive training during the summer of2008 from the Instructional Technologist. The STARS program would begin the fallof 2008 and take two school years to complete, with one course each quarter forparticipants. As a District recognition for program participation a district certificatewould be awarded to participants who completed the two year program. In addition,those who successfully completed the program would automatically become eligibleto apply for openings as building Technology Teacher Leader for additionalcompensation.STARS Program Topics All topics taught will be related to the International Society for Technology inEducation (ISTE)s 2008 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) (SeeAppendix I). Topics taught will also be designed to meet the skills identified by theLoTi survey as areas in need of professional development support to address the lowlevel of mastery noted in the survey.
  • 86. 75 Academic and Vocational instructors will receive courses on the followingtopics: • Information Literacy Skills for Teachers and Students • Working Online: Navigation and effective utilization of quality online resources • Project-Based Learning with Technology • Blackboard • Blogging and RSS Feeds • Wikis • Podcasting • Videocasting These topics were selected because they meet the 2008 National EducationalTechnology Standards set forth by the International Society for Technology inEducation (Appendix I). Teachers in the NCCVT School District also identifiedseveral of these topics as areas of interest to them for future professional developmentofferings during a November 2006 survey conducted by the District (Appendix J).Information for each course will be designed to fit the needs of the Academic orVocational Instructor and curriculum involved. Administrators will receive courses on the following topics: • Technology standards for students, teachers, facilitators and administrators • The National Technology Plan and the district technology plan • Identification of best practices and assessment of technology integration
  • 87. 76 • Modeling and promoting technology use by administrators at their schools • Legal issues regarding technology use in todays schools • Using technology tools to stay productive and organized • Communicating with staff and community using technology • Conducting Observations using TechnologyWorkshop sessions will be designed thru a collaborative network of departmentchairs and administrators after initial LoTi results have been evaluated and topicsidentified.Evaluating the STARS Program The STARS Program will be evaluated by comparing teachers andadministrators LoTi Survey results from the 2007-2008 school year to the results atthe end of the 2008-2009 school year, and again at the end of the 2009-2010 schoolyear. A survey with questions specific to the NCCVT School district will also bedeveloped to provide feedback concerning the training model, staff membersparticipation habits, and perceptions of the STARS program. In addition, a survey will be developed for students in the NCCVT Schooldistrict. This survey will ask students similar questions to the teachers to determine ifthe students feel they are experiencing activities with more technology use than priorto the STARS program.
  • 88. 77Summary of STARS Program In conclusion, the pilot program, an example of the proposed format for thisproposal has demonstrated notable success. The participants scored improvements intheir pre/post test LoTi Survey scores. The hybrid delivery via Blackboard and face-to-face support has demonstrated that the proposed technology development plan haspositive results. Of the 14 teachers who participated in the hybrid pilot program, sixdemonstrated growth in one or more of the three categories. By implementing theSTARS Program, the NCCVT School District will improve their technologyintegration skills thereby increasing their overall LoTi scores.
  • 89. 78 Works CitedAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Computer Impact and Downsizing Period. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/computerimpact.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Consolidation Period. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/consolidation.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Federal Aid Boom Period. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/federalaid.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Formative Period. Retrieved 1 2008, January, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/formative.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Independence and Dispersion Period. Retrieved January 2008, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/independence.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). National Defense Education Act (NDEA). Retrieved January 1, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/ndea2.htmAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). Post-War Growth Period. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from AECT History: http://www.aect.org/About/History/postwar.htm
  • 90. 79Betrus, A. K., & Molenda, M. (2002). Historical Evolution of Instructional Technology in Teacher Education Programs. TechTrends, 46 (5), 18-21, 33.Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a Long-Duration, Professional Development Academy on Technology Skills, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Technology Integration Beliefs and Practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (1), 22-43.Carvin, A. (1999, September 30). Technology Professional Development for Teachers: Overcoming a Pedagogical Digital Divide. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The Digital Beat: http://www.benton.org/publibrary/digitalbeat/db093099.htmlClapp, D. (2004, November/December). Teacher Professional Development- Computer Tech Training. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from School Executive: http://www.schoolexec.comDelaware Center for Educational Technology. (2007, October 27). Instructions for taking the survey. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from Delaware Center for Educational Technology: http://www.dcet.kl2.de.us/instructional/loti/surveydirections.docDelaware Center for Educational Technology. (2007, November 2). Levels of Technology Implementation. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from Delaware Center for Educational Technololgy: http://www.dcet.kl2.de.us/instructional/loti/index.shtml
  • 91. 80Delaware Center for Educational Technology. (2007, October 27). Who should take the survey. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from Delaware Center for Educational Technology: http://www.dcet.kl2.de.us/instructional/loti/whosurvey.shtmlEditorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2007). State Technology Report 2007-Delaware. Education Week.eSchool News. (1998). The First State is first to wire all classrooms, says Delaware governor. eSchool News.Hayes, J., & Grunwald, P. (2004, March 4). QEDs Annual Survey of District-Level Tech Coordinators. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http ://www.k 12schoolnetworking.org/2004/presentations/W202_hayes .pptLemke, C , & Shaw, S. (1999). Education Technology Policies of the 50 States. The Milken Exchange on Education Technology.LoTi Lounge, (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.lotilounge.comMcMillian Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy.Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. (1999). Survey of Technology in the Schools.National Business Education Alliance. (2006). CIP Framework. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/cipframework.html
  • 92. 81National Business Education Alliance. (2006). CIP Framework: Intensity Level 4. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http:/Aoticonnection.com/cip4.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/lotilevels.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework Level 0: NonUse. Retrieved January 1,2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/levelO.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework Level 1-Awareness. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http:/Aoticonnection.com/levell.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework Level 2: Exploration. Retrieved January 1,2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/level2.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework Level 3: Infusion. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http ://lo ticonnection.com/level3 .htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). LoTi Framework Level 5: Expansion. Retrieved January 1,2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/level5.html
  • 93. 82National Business Education Alliance. (2006). PCU Framework. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/pcuframework.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). PCU Framework: Intensity Level 3. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from The LoTi Connection: 2008National Business Education Alliance. (2006). PCU Framework: Intensity Level 5. Retrieved March 10,2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/pcu5.htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). PCU Framework: Intensity Level 6.Retrieved March 10, 2008, from The LoTi Connection:http ://loticonnection.com/pcu6 .htmlNational Business Education Alliance. (2006). PCU Framework: Intensity Level 7. Retrieved March 10,2008, from The LoTi Connection: http://loticonnection.com/pcu7.htmlNational Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005. U.S. Department of Education.New Castle County Vo-Tech School District. (2007). Balanced ScorecardiStrategic Plan. Wilmington.New Castle County Vo-Tech School District. (2007). Blueprint for Success II. Wilmington.New Castle County Vo-Tech School District. (2007). Technology Balanced Score Card. Wilmington.
  • 94. 83New Castle County Vo-Tech School District. (2007, September 7). Technology for Teachers Series. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from NCCVT: http://10.228.4.14/Lists/Announcements/DispForm.aspx?ID=1005&Source=h ttp%3A%2F%2F10%2E228%2E4%2E14%2FLists%2FAnnouncements%2F AllItems%2EaspxRodriguez, G., & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical Issue: Providing Professional Development for Effective Technology Use. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/tel000.htmRouser, S. (2007, December 21). Director of Professional Development.Saettler, P. (2004). Evolution ofAmerican Educational Technology. Information Age Publishing.Sine, P. (2007). Instructional Technology Audit. Wilmington.Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Lannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (1999). Teachers Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers Use of Technology. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2 (4), 4.The CEO Forum. (1999). School Technology and Readiness Report.U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting Americas Students ready for the 21st Century.U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers Use of Technology. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://nces.ed .gov/survey s/frss/publications/2000102/index. asp
  • 95. Wells, J. G. (2007). Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology Professional Development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (1), 101-122.Zych, D. (2008, January 7). Assistant Superintendent.
  • 96. Appendix A podcastingquestions. ........... ,3.msw@rs who: <--,. I - M ; , . . . . i ,i i ; i [. i i •• what: •; -i-vi -i. -t ii^-i, , i• i - i • • • • • • • • i i ! " , U . w h e r e : M,,I. - „ . , , , • - . . , . . • -.,"IPKO cjiH*stseii« and mny when: > _ .... - ii. t,,- < >> < < _i m r p t/) no nn>vj«ieJ di ring:r m Poacam wornilioji why: s..i !,<<..• in ,>m >,.Mt . u -If you are interested
  • 97. Appendix BTEACHERS AND COURSES > STARS PHOT PROGRAM;TOPCASTING> LOTI SURVEY0 3 LoTi Survey Read this First! About LoTi LoTi is a term referring to Dr. Christopher Moerschs Level of Technology Implementation Framework designed to accurately measure authentic classroom technology use. The LoTi Framework focuses on the use of technology as a tool within the context of student based instruction with a constant emphasis on higher order thinking. The LoTi Framework has, at each level, a description of the instruction that is occurring as well as the involvement of the students. That is why the LoTi assessment considers two critical areas. • Current Instructional Practices (OP) This area focuses on what methods the teacher uses to deliver instruction. 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) How comfortable are the teachers in using the technology tools involved in integration?
  • 98. Read this Second!Please complete the following activity, the LoTi Disclosure - PreSurvey, toacknowledge that you have received full disclosure regarding the LoTiSurvey.Once you have finished taking the LoTi Disclosure, please come back tocontinue in your steps to take the actual LoTi Survey.Read this third! LoTi Disclosure-Pre SurveyRead this Fourth!Directions for taking the LoTi Survey1. Righl Click and open the following link in a new window toaccess (he LoTi Lounge at: hllp:/. www.loiilounge.com2. Click on ihe link that says Sign Me Up! (in the Im a New Usersection of the LoTi Ixiungc login block) to complete a ONH TIMFregistration sequence (hat will both identify you as part of the St.Georges Technical High School Podcasling Workshop and as anindividual user.3. Follow the registration instructions on the screen. You will firstbe prompted to enter your Group ID and Password. Group ID: podcasling Password: podcasling 4. Next, you will be prompted to enter your User Informationincluding a User ID and Password of your choosing (NOT theGroup ID and Password given above). This User ID and passwordshould be something you will remember as it is what you will useto login to LoTi Lounge in the future. Please WRITE DOWN yourselected User ID and User Password information as you will betaking this Survey again at the end of the Workshop and thisinformation is necessary to re-access the Ix)Ti Lounge system.5. Next, you will be prompted to enter your Hmail address.Entering a valid email address is necessary to have full access toLoTi l^oungc.
  • 99. 88ft. Finally, you will be prompted to select your organization from astructural list that has already been entered into the computer basedon the Group ID you were given. Choose your organization andclick Continue to complete the registration process.
  • 100. Appendix CTEACHERS AND COURSES > STARS PILOT PROGRAM: PODCASTING > WEEK 1IB Weekl This week, you will... v • Take the LoTi Survey online (More information about this to follow via e-mail!) • Learn what a Podcast is • Watch a training video about setting up your NewsGator Online account and subscribing to Podcasts • Search for and find Podcasts to subscribe to • Read a brief article about Podcasting in Education • Discuss the article with your fellow Podcasting peers • Start thinking about ways you could use a Podcast in your classroom/environment. Whats a Podcast? ^> A podcast is a collection of digital media files which is distributed over the Internet, often using syndication feeds, for playback on portable media players and personal computers. The term, like "radio", can refer either to the content itself or to the method by which it is syndicated; the latter is also termed podcasting. The host or author of a podcast is often called a podcaster. The term "podcasl" was formed by putting the words "iPod" and "broadcast" together. There arc three kinds of podcasts: I. Audio Podcasts are usually an MP3 file and are the most common types of podcasts.
  • 101. 90 2. Enhanced Podcasts can have images lo go along with the audio. They can also have chapter markers, making it easier lo skip to different portions of an episode. Enhanced podcasts are an A AC file and are not supported by all devices. At this lime, only iTunes and iPods support enhanced podcasts. 3. Video Podcasts are movies, complete with sound. Video podcasts can be in a variety of formats, but MPEG-4 is the most popular.In this workshop, we will focus on Audio Podcasts.Training Video Week #1NewsGator and Adding feeds.wmv (16.264 Mb)Click the attached link and choose OPEN. After thefile downloads, it should open automatically throughWindows Media Player. If you have any issues withviewing the file, you could also try downloading it byclicking the link and choosing SAVE, and then viewingthe file. Its a pretty big file so Id recommend viewingit the first way before saving it.NPR PodcastsThis is the first website that was demonstrated in thisweeks training video.Education Podcast NetworkThis is the second link that was demonstrated in thisweeks training video.Article: Podcasting in Educationk12 handhelds-Podcastinq.pdf (80.992 Kb)Click on the attached link to read this weeks article -which is a brief article about using Podcasting inEducation. Once youve read the article, think abouthow you could possibly use Podcasting in yourclassroom/environment, then click the link below tojoin the discussion with your peers!Click here to join the Discussion for this week!
  • 102. 91
  • 103. Appendix DTEACHERS AND COURSES > STARS PILOT PROGRAM: POPCASTING > CONTROL PANEL > LOTI SURVEY > PREVIEWASSESSMENT: LOTI DISCLOSURE-PRE SURVEYH-p Preview Assessment: LoTi Disclosure-Pre Survey Name: LoTi Disclosure-Pre Survey Instructions: LoTi Survey Disclosure The Survey you are about to take is called the LoTi Survey. This survey has been set up so that your data will be sent to the researcher, Monica D.T. Rysavy, in the aggregate which means that your individual scores (raw data) will not be present, thereby making your submission results anonymous. The data collected from this survey will be used to improve the Workshop you are participating in, as well as to help improve the overall technology professional development plan for the District that Monica D.T. Rysavy is writing for her Wilmington University Executive Position Paper (dissertation). This LoTi Survey is completely separate from the State of Delawares LoTi Survey. Your results will not be seen by anyone other than Monica D.T. Rysavy. You will need to take the official LoTi Survey the next time it is offered by the District. Important: Please ignore the "Multiple Attempts" and "Forced Completion" Messages that follow these directions. All you have to do once youve read everything is type your name and click SUBMIT. Multiple Attempts: Not allowed. This Test can only be taken once. Force Completion: This Test can be saved and resumed later.Bottom of Form
  • 104. 93 Appendix EPodcasting - K O I landftelds Page 1 of IPodcastingWhat is all the buzz abosrt padrasting? WhatrapodcasBng, and why is 8 relevant toPodeasHnjj is a waytopost and tfelribule electronic media Ben on-line. Bodcasts are of Merest totalise Ifteyp r w l * an e«v w»y to gel engaging muBmed* content out W a <*j*rs«i §««* of peej*. who «w W w t »it whenever and wherever they lite on a variety of readily-available platformsA pedrast is generally a regularly-produced series ofttws®paste, simitartoa sertas ofrasfiobraicfeaste,episodes in a felsyaion teries, or entries In a fparerwal pumai For example, the popular news $tw* M tie splsfldes feUsyaion series, or entries In aBocau* podewts can tm prodweM andftroadws!jeWlwly (r»stp»nst<i»ly, » targe nwn&ett of toih amateurand professional podcaste a;e arvailaBte. You can downtoad podeaals about everything fforsi news ta food.pGfflteto«f toBon, personal logstospo«ls, musictoludwetesjjf. wtf mew. Swne txs*»sl* *«e v«y highquaBty, ami edhats... well, theyre reminiscent of early cable access letewsion, (Remember Way/las WWtf?)Podcasts can ta downloaded to you auismatJcally as soon as they are available »iih no spatial aritee cm yopart, Von e»s dotwfoad awf listen 1ft p o * » « with a vawty of d«<»8, wch a* desktop «mp«ie»*. «»pt»pcomputers, MP3 playersflPadsand others). Palm awl WMows MatBe handholds, awl mm CHII phones.So how is pe&astina refewsnttoeducation? H Is a pewwful publishing platform tha< addrwsss sfifferenlteaming. Hying., I* highly moMe, a«sd earntfeUvartawleref "Just In time." Think abcwt sonw * A teacher uses her ceil phone to create a podcast ninth daily homewrk assignments and other classroom information. Parents download t i e podcasfs to slay up-to-date on their cfiitdrens school activities. • The districttechnologystaff podcasts quick tech support tips for teachers to access as- they t»sd tham. • K«3s create 8 podcast about the Civil War to show what theyve learrted and share II with ottwr classrooms. * A school board podcasts their meetings arid special evadts as a way to increase communityfcwolveroerrtin the school system. • A teacher records her class tor students to download as a podcast. These podcasts are used by students who a<e absent as well as by these who need extra reinforcement or want to review. * A class takes a virtual field trip to NASA via a saundseetng tour podcest. The virtual field trip Is broadcast in several formats, some designed for Englishfenguagelearners and othersfewGATE students.Theftttuteo* podeasrlsrifl wB l»?g wen mum esedflng inrattliem*. Some universale* haws already begunisstAsf all incoming seudftnts MPS players and vok» realtors and hayafoundtKart this mates a * tateaming,A new development In thistechnotogyis the abilitytopcstoM video -being s*tetodownload inttucHawri videos or short "tsrttsg cha*bo»rd" tutorials. Futurs podteaste may turninclude ambeaded lntera«twites so thatteamerecsn practice wha« ttw/re learning, oteate an end product, erhttp:,Hvvvv,kl2har)dheW»,«>Ht/podcasit]ng.ptip mm<m
  • 105. 94 Appendix FTEACHERS AND COURSES > STARS PILOT PROGRAM: PODCASTING > COMMUNICATIONS > DISCUSSION BOARD > WEEK 1DISCUSSION Add New Thread EX RAND ALL El COLLAPSE ALL BVIEW UW&VB MESSAGES 81 9BMW3H m SHOW OPTIONS BLets get started chatting... Anonvmous Mon Feb 25 2008 09:13 BRe: Lets get started chatting... Anonymous Mon Feb 25 2008 12:09 Science Teachers - check this. Anonvmous Tue Feb 26 2008 14:35 BRe: Lets get started chatting... I Anonymous Mon Feb 25 2008 18:48 BRe: Lets get started chattin... Anonymous Tue Feb 26 2008 13:26 BRe: Lets get started chat... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 10:56 Re: Lets get started c... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 17:14 BRe: Lets get started chatting... Anonvmous Mon Feb 25 2008 18:52 Re: Lets get started chattin... Anonvmous Tue Feb 26 2008 13:33 BRe: Lets get started chattin... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 08:13 BRe: Lets get started chat... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 09:50 BRe: Lets get started c... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 11:02 Re: Lets qetstarte... Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 17:24 BSomething to think about Anonvmous Wed Feb 27 2008 18:23 Re: Something to think about Anonvmous Fri Mar 07 2008 12:44 Using Podcasting Anonvmous Sun Mar 02 2008 13:29
  • 106. 95 Appendix G Podcasting Lesson Plan Template Teacher: Teattdd Subject:Topic/Unit:Date:How will Podcasting be used?I I To add additional information to what was already taughtI I To teach something newI I As part of an activityI I Other; Explain:I found this Podcast on this website:This Podcast is about:Describe in detail how the Podcast will beused:How will you share the Podcast with students?I I Play through laptop or desktop computer with external speakersI I Play using a Presentation StationI I Other; Explain:How will students interact with the Podcast?I I Listen and take notesI I Listen and complete a worksheet that you provide or was provided by the site of the Podcast
  • 107. 96I I Other; Explain:Reflection: How did it go?
  • 108. Appendix H Setting up a Bimkbmrd CourseL Go to the Blackboard web page: http://blaclsboard.riccvt.ttl2.de.y52. login using the same credentials you use to log onto the network at school for example, your user name might be*>saliy.smith" and your password might be "44348".3, Wh«n you login, you will see a screen similar to litis one; & <&vm Saw* »*& t S*N8*SIB4, Scroll down the page until you see the "Course Crestkm Wizard* Ctjiit-H C<?aHo» HV-smS O s a l s tpuf$e& tssifsg w? ^asy gf ^p-bv-slep &%&3tti approach Cyck l ^ f g f Q l ? u r t ^ th% Ccyr^t Cy%Miffrj yvig#ritf Click where it says "Click here to launch this Course Croatian Wteartf5. SMext^ you will see a screen welcoming you to the Course Creation Wizard, it looks like this U$wm#m fe #** c#ti**& cmft&s mma
  • 109. 98 Setting up a Blackboard Course6. Click "Next" and you will come to a screen that aste you to enter the name of your course, a course iD, and a description- Below is a suggested way of entering yowr Information, butfee!freeto call your course whatever you want- The name of your cowse is what will appear untter the "My Courae** section of the scr&er* for everyone you tfiroil In your course. r « H* t t *• **h-r * * ( U Course Information Prftitto » Ca«i*» Warns (br »x»mol#ftrtroto Biotogyj u»ieju«€tfsf<»|D(faf«xarnjls K0181j wi> 0«ttris*onte*yeui eeofM A Cours# N8<wt »nd # Casmss ID am <»<»#«> Mrs Smiths BlaeteoartCf**? Conn* 10 sample Description Tfcxs 13 if.e SlasMiMrsl7. After you have entered your information, click "Next".8. Here you wiil see a "Course Materials* screen, Just dick "Next".
  • 110. 99 Setting up a Blackboard Course Now «m will see the Course O&slgn menu, Choose whether you want Scjuare Buttons or just text. Persomlly, I prefer buttons, because with the Just Text option, sometimes people get confused and dont know what to dick. Its up to you though. Pick s button type (solid, patterned or stripedf - and anything Otter than solid can be hard to read. Finally, pick your button Kolor, Then d«k "Next", ft «Wi li*tf By &f*1 *3 •yfet*10. The next screen is the Course Menu, This is where you decide what sections you want your Course to have. Irt Blackboard, sections are calied "Content Areas". Think about this like 3 binder with tabs in it. For example, in my courses I typically have art "Announcements", "Assignments*, "Podcasts", "Documents", "Qulf, and "Test* sections. Dont ramose the "Discussion Board", "Externa) Units, or "Tools" content areas. •<t&;&*&l * CSSfi^AfSS* « # < <%*•$! # ^.^M i # i s ^ I &»M«MI i ntMijSb S * ,!<*1 *# When ^ou are finished adding your content areas, removing those you dont want? and reordering the menu list cikk Winter,
  • 111. Setting up a Blackboard Course 11. Orsce youve clicked "Finish", you will see this screen; Click the link indicated to close the wiwtaw and open your new course i12, At tNs poifi^ you wilt be inside ofyour ««w cowst and it should loofcsometfilng like tfste C-^ % tiw13, Now there are many things you can do wteh HaekiKsard, hut for the purposes of this course, Im just going to showyou how to link to Podcasts that you have found, or upload Porfcasts that you have found and/or created. First click the"Control Panel" Sink underneath •Tools" on the left-hand side of the screen.
  • 112. 101 Setting up a Blackboard Course14. The Control Panel looks (ike this, Click the "Podcasts" link underneath Content Areas". This may be m a differentorder depending on how you set your site up. JSflL $ &&%.15."Vour^Podcast* content area is empty right now, so It looks like thhi
  • 113. Setting up a Blackboard Course16. Adding tints to Existing Poeteasts; !f you have a link to a web page with a Podcast that you would like to play, thenlink to it by clicking the External Link button at the top of the page. That will bring you to this screen t> m m c u f * "I < A * e ta ei a « /Type the Name you would like for the Podcast is the "Name* section, and copy/paste the web page link in the URL box.IMPORTANT; This needs to be the actual website with the file fwhkh am jeither be played at thai website ordownloaded, this am net he the feedAddrea that you put into four MemGator accountNext, put any description youd like to add In the boss, in the section called "Content" on this page, t usually leave italone, however you could upload a F e if youd like - for example, questions you had created or found to go with the HPodcast you are (inking too. Leave the rest alone. In the "Options" section, the only thing I change is to click the buttonthat says "Open in New Window" .This seems to be easier for students because this will make the Podcast you areIMklng o open in a new window instead of inside the Blackboard site.Finally, dick "SUBMIT", Now youve added a link to an existing Podcast website!17. Uploading a Podcast that youfound,or a Podcast that you From the Podcast content area (see step 15), clickthe "ITEM" link at the top of the18. you will see a screen that l«wks like this. Type the name of the Podcast where it says "Name" and type a descriptionIn the box. *MB> t? * » * ;: •• i 5 J b a « * -fl /
  • 114. Setting up a Blackboard Course19. Next, clif k the "Add audio content" button v;pa vjiT«wsN<wRom»n v B i II S: 8f Jft 15 != t * t* *6 a < ac / a"That will bring up a screen that looks like this, first, upload your audio file (this sKoyld be an MPS file), by clickingbrowse, leave the Audio FBe Options alone and then click SUBMIT. pl|f .ISD Leo* OV« «h» 0 » « SMSfflfKWftfi*. Cits* «*»»tte <|WU j t ^ i t t i J_ ff «,»20. If your podcast uploads successfully, you will see a screen like thes, Then dick "SUBMIT* * SSW #*»&( *"**? ft f p**s P-ali® a*«*e* s s ^ c a l
  • 115. Setting up G Blackboard Course21. On the next screen, dont be alarmed If your bm looks lite thisI CwsftKrt1nfe»m«&» •%£)It wiU still work, but it just appears iike this sometimes. Click SUBMIT at the bottom of the page ar»d then OK ort the next21. Vour Podcast Is now uploaded and shouldtooklite this. Ptease note: To Ray the PmJcast, you wlH need to click thisblack bar once to activate it, ami then the buttons will work to start and stop. Thetongerthe Potest is, the more time ftwill take to toad.22. Well thats it! Now you know how to set up your own Blackboard site, how to link to Potest websites, and how toupload a Podcast file that youfoundor that you made! Great Jobl
  • 116. Appendix I2008 International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Teachers ** Pr«Hwnl»fli&ipcrlMc«f ferr §AM»um#rrts ISTEs Idtartlonal Technotogy ji ,,,, % ^Teachers ttaiiiiciswfwhip . ft Responsibility 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. Teachers: a. promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness. . engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources. promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students C- conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes. , model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues, and others in face-to-face and virtual environments. 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS»S. Teachers: a. design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity. b. develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress. c. customize and personalize learning activities to address students diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. d. provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching. 3. Model Digital-Age W o r k and Learning Teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society. Teachers: a. demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge
  • 117. to new technologies and situations.b. collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation.c. communicate relevant information and ideas effectively to students, parents, and peers using a variety of digital-age media and formats.d. model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging digital tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support research and learning.Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and ResponsibilityTeachers understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolvingdigital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices.Teachers:a. advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources.b. address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources.c. promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information.d. develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools.Engage in Professional Growth and LeadershipTeachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, andexhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting anddemonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources. Teachers:a. participate in local and global learning communities to explore creative applications of technology to improve student learning.b. exhibit leadership by demonstrating a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others.c. evaluate and reflect on current research and professional practice on a regular basis to make effective use of existing and emerging digital tools and resources in support of student learning.d. contribute to the effectiveness, vitality, and self-renewal of the teaching profession and of their school and community.
  • 118. Appendix J Conducted in the NCCVT School District in November 2006Basic Technology Educational Needs SurveyPlease respond to this survey to help gauge the direction of an upcoming district cluster for technology. Thiscluster will aim to assist those with introductory technology needs. T Respond to this SurveyActions View: {Graphical Summary 1. Would you like to learn more about the following Microsoft Applications? Excel Powerpoint Access Publisher (%) 18 31 47 Excel MS 111 Wm (%) 21 31 37 Powerpoint ^ • w& • 1 1 1 2 3 (%) 21 26 35 Access 1 1 1 1 2 3 (%) 18 27 44 Publisher • fem I SKH 1 BBSS* 1 2 3 Total: 62 2. Do you need training with the use of an LCD or the presentation station technology? (Check box for yes)
  • 119. Yes Number Of , _ _ ^_ Responses39 Percentage j £ * $ f e © ^ " i - ^ ^ " - " ^ 3ttSMQ5Jfcifr&i Of Responses(63%) No Number Of Responses23 Percentag< ,-•• <i*_. Of Responses(37%) Total: 623. Do you need training in the use of Blackboard? Yes Number Of Responses42 Percentage fcctai.-aSS** >».:..-. U . > «4mfla£i4£.*#£.CJ . Of Responses(68%) No Number Of Responses20 Percentage ,?SWfe* ,,il *"i , * E fS^SS Of Responses(32%) Total: 624. Do you need training in the use of UnitedStreaming Videos? Yes Number Of . . • , t ! B .,, Responses32 Percentage tUS^^ii^lL 1-, „U » . w ^ Of Responses(52%) No Number Of Responses29 Percentage .*Btrf^*j*^"i?i5»i5wwBi£a(«.- Of Responses(48%) Total: 615. Rate your level of experience with each of thefollowing as 1 to 4 (Basic to Expert):
  • 120. Basic Average Expert (%} 39 23 23 15 Use of an LCD projector I • • m 1 2 3 4 (%) 50 21 19 6 Presentation Station Usage 1 2 3 4 (%} 66 8 10 8 Creating a Blackboard Course I 9 1 2 3 4 Downloading United Streaming Videos and Clips (%) 45 24 18 11 1 1 2 3 4 Total: 626. Do you have any additional technology topics inwhich you would be interested? I would be interested if the instruction was hands on instruction and not "heres a manual -- follow this and practice" as some technology training I have had in the past. Number Of Responsesl Percentagt v p ^ Of Responses(8%) It would be helpful to create an actual course during the cluster- using a current course and putting it on blackboard with all components. Same with the other areas- actually create a powerpoint to be used in the classroom - the hands on would be more important than simply getting a manual and working independently. Having things we can create and use in our current courses would be most helpful. Thank you. I would be interested; however, may be doing another cluster at that time, so would have to weigh the time commitment. Number Of _ ! Responsesl Percentage H - •• . : Of Responses(6%) , . • • • " . , I would like to gain additonal insight on the use of technology in the classroom. I currently use technology in the class put I would like to be more efficent. Number Of Responsesl Percentage £^b*& Of Responses(8%)
  • 121. 110 Web page creation using Dreamweaver or Front Page Number Of - __ m Responsesl Percentage ! j § ^ h Of Responses(8%) typing Number Of ^ Responses! Percentage •£ •$£ Of Responses(8%) more with blackboard, and presentation station Number Of Responsesl Percentage "zaU*, Of Responses(8%) Podcasting Website creation Number Of Responsesl Percentage x£/".^ Of Responses(8%) Access!!! I would like to know if more presentation stations will be available for teacher use. I am becoming proficient with a lot of the technology, but I do not necessarily have the means for presenting or using with my classes. Number Of Responsesl Percentage Of Responses(8%) Using a digital camera and downloading picture onto the computer. Number Of Responsesl Percentage Z$$&> Of Responses(8%) How to import Excel Spreadsheet data into E-school...it seems no-one knows if/how this might be accomplished. Number Of Responsesl Percentage ?0 * Of Responses(8%) How about offering some courses in the schools tram 3:00-4:30 Number Of Responsesl Percentage jSS^aj Of Responses(8%) Inserting Streaming Videos and Clips into PowerPoint and into Blackboard Number Of Responsesl Percentage f^}$ Of Responses(8%) Total: 127. Would you be interested in attending a
  • 122. Illtechnology cluster in the spring? Yes Number Of ResponsesiS Percentage . . ^ ^ • ! i ^ j * 4 S i a ^ ^ ^ f f i ^ % : j A ^ - J ® f c r f ( Of Responses(64%) No Number Of ResponseslO Percentage Caw;.*****:-- ,- ^-.-AmM Of Responses(36%) Total: 28