ED 394 973 SP 036 689 TITLE Technology System (KETS ... · 439 Strickler Hall University of...
Transcript of ED 394 973 SP 036 689 TITLE Technology System (KETS ... · 439 Strickler Hall University of...
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 394 973 SP 036 689
TITLE Implementation of the Kentucky EducationTechnology System (KETS).
INSTITUTION Kentucky Univ., Lexington. Inst. on EducationReform.
SPONS AGENCY Kentucky Inst. for Education Research, Frankfort.PUB DATE Oct 95NOTE 109p.; For related documents, see SP 036 685-694.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer Networks;
*Computer Uses in Education; Educational Assessment;*Educational Technology; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Interviews; Program Evaluation; *ProgramImplementation; School Restructuring; StateDepartments of Education
IDENTIFIERS *Kentucky; *Kentucky Education Reform Act 1990
ABSTRACTThis report describes two studies on the extent of
the implementation of the Kentucky Education Technology System(KETS), part of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA).Study 1 was an eYternal evaluation using 8 university field observers(names are given); study 2 was a self-assessment study using 47anonymous district technology coordinators field observers. The sameresearch instrument was used in both studies. Both studies examined arandom sample of the same 24 schools. Composite findings indicatethat all districts are connected to the KETS network, and schoolsacross the state had shown significant progress in building thecapacity to make technology and technology networks available tostudents, teachers, and administrators. Aspects related to schoolstructures of planning and organization had seen the most progress,yet wide differences were noted in the use of technologicalapplications and options available for professional development.Principals were found to be generally positive about the potential oftechnology and committed to providing it for students. Wordprocessing received considerable use in study schools, and databasesand spreadsheets were beginning to be a regular part of instruction;telecommunication was rarely used for instruction or communication.In addition, the use of the two-way video teleconferencing networkwas found to be an efficient and cost-effective method for trainingdata collectors. Basic classroom connectivity was found to bedeficient; differentiating factors between low and high technologyimplementation schools were related to classroom instruction andprofessional development. Four appendices include an innovationcomponent configuration map for educational technology, the principaland teacher interview questions, and statistical representations ofgathered data. (NAV)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
KENTUCKYINSTITUTE
FEM 2,EDUCATION
RESEARCHThe Implementation of the
Kentucky Education Technology SystemPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIALHAS BEEN GRANTED BY
(i_ikft)-zAttfr,
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
(KETS)
A Report of Researchconclumd by the
Institute on Education ReformUniversity of Kentu
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ot EducahonaI Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
0 Mrs document has been reproduced asrecewed from the person or orgenrzatrononginahng
0 Mmot changes ha Ye been mad» to improvereProduchon oushty
Potnts of view or opmlons $lated in trus docu-ment do not necessanly represent officrafOERI posttron or policy
for theKentucky Institute for Education Research
and theKentucky Department of Education
October 1995
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
BOARD OF DIRECTORSChairBen RichmondUrban League of Louisville1535 West BroadwayLouisville, KY 40203-3516
Vice ChairGary DoddCM Management Services698 Perimeter Drive, Suite 200Lexington, KY 40517
SecretaryRobert E SextonThe Prichard Committee
for Academic ExcellenceP. 0. Box 1658Lexington, KY 40592
TreasurerDoug KuelpmanUnited Parcel Service1400 North Hurstbourne ParkwayLouisville, KY 40223
Lila BellandoChurchill WeaversP. O. Box 30Berea, KY 40403
Barbara DeebWKYU-TV1 Big Red WayBowling Green, KY 42101
Jane Joplin Evans515 North Main StreetSomerset, KY 42501
Blaine Hudson439 Strickler HallUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville, KY 40292
Ernie W. StamperAshland Petroleum Co.P. 0. Box 391Ashland, KY 41114
Fred D. Williams70 Pentland PlaceFt. Thomas, KY 41075
Amy Helm WilsonMurray Ledger & Times1001 Whitnell AvenueMurray, KY 42071
Joe WrightStar RouteHarned, KY 40144
Executive DirectorRoger S. Pankratz, Ph.D.KY Institute for Education Research146 Consumer LaneFrankfort, KY 40601
KENfijECKYINSTITUTE
EDUFCOATIONRESEARCH
146 Consumer Lane Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 502-227-9014 Fax 502-227-8976
The Implementation of theKentucky Education Technology
System (KETS)
A report of tworesearch studies conducted through the
Institute on Education ReformUniversity of Kentucky
Principal Investigator
Joan M. Mazur
November 1995
Supported with funds from the
Kentucky Institute for Education ResearchKentucky Department of Education
PREFACE
This research project is one of six studies conducted in the spring of 1995 todetermine the extent schools and educators across Kentucky had implemented Edu-cational Technology, High School Restructuring, The Primary Program, ProfessionalDevelopment, Performance Assessment, and School-Based Decision Making.
The studies were sponsored by the Kentucky Institute for Education Research,supported by funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each of the researchprojects was contracted to a the Kentucky university that managed the research andemployed the services of a team of researchers/field observers, mostly from highereducation institutions across the state.
Each study was designed to collect data from a random set of schools acrossthe eight state educational regions. All studies used a research tool developed espe-cially for studying the progress of program implementation called an InnovationComponent Configuration Map. The Conkuration Map enables researchers to judgethe level of implementation of different program components based on a common setof standards and guidelines.
Collectively, through these six studies, more than fifty trained researchersvisited 189 schools across the Commonwealth conducting interviews, observingclassrooms, training sessions and school council meetings, reviewing documents andcollecting artifacts. To date this research represents the single most comprehensiveeffort to gauge the level of implementation of programs initiated through the Ken-tucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA).
The Kentucky Institute for Education Research is proud to be able to sponsorthese projects and highly commends the members of the research teams and theuniversities for the excellent work of data collection and analysis they conductedunder difficult conditions and a limited budget. On behalf of the Institute, I want topersonally express my sincere appreciation to each of the principal investigators fortheir professional commitment to this statewide effort, their many hours of workbeyond those budgeted in the contract and their perseverance to produce a high-quality report.
I sincerely hope you will find the contents of this report both informative andhelpful.
Roger Pankratz, Executive DirectorKentucky Institute for Education Research
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study could not have been conducted without the participation of manydedicated educators, researchers, and other personnel involved in technology andeducation in the state of Kentucky who contributed invaluable assistance. We thankthem here.
To begin, we thank the principals and teachers who allowed the observers tovisit their schools and classrooms, particularly at the end of the school year whentime constraints are so pressing.
Next, we thank the 47 District Technology Coordinators who volunteered tocollect data and who, because of confidentiality, must remain anonymous. Theycompleted the observation instrument during a time of the year when their responsi-bilities are heaviest and their schedules the most hectic. The eight regional KETScoordinators also deserve praise for coordinating the recruiting and training effortsfor the study. We also thank the university observers for taking time in their busyschedules to participate in the data collection. These observers are listed on thenext page.
We also appreciate the assistance of Dr. Gene Hall, University of NorthernColorado, and Dr. Edward Caffarella, of that same institution, for assistance in thedevelopment of the map and for comments on a draft of the final report. Dr. ArchieGeorge, University of Idaho, analyzed the data and was most helpful in helping us tounderstand the data from the discriminate cluster analysis.
Lydia Wells-Sledge, Director of Customer Support Services, provided supportfor the various activities associated with the study. These included such diverse tasksas working on drafts of the map to providing the researchers with mailing lists ofdistrict technology coordinators.
Dr. Roger Pankratz, Executive Director of the Kentucky Institute for EducationResearch, has educated us in the purpose and effective use of Innovation Configura-tion Component Maps to assess progress of the KERA initiatives. He offered manyvaluable suggestions as to the conduct of the study and during the preparation of thefinal report.
Scott Adams, the research assistant for the project, coordinated the distributionand collection of the data and performed the numerous clerical tasks associated witha statewide effort of this type.
Joan Mazur, Assistant ProfessorInstructional Systems Design and Technology ProgramDepartment of Curriculum & InstructionUniversity of Kentucky
II
STUDY I: EXTERNAL EVALUATION
UNIVERSITY FIELD OBSERVERS
Scott AdamsUniversity of Kentucky
Melissa Evans-AndrisUniversity of Louisville
Willis JohnsonMurray State University
Joan MazurUniversity of Kentucky
Mary Ann KolloffEastern Kentucky University
Leah LeeMurray State University
Jean SmithKentucky State University
Elaine WilliamsWestern Kentucky University
STUDY II: SELF-ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY COORDINATORSFIELD OBSERVERS
There were 47 district technology coordinators who gathered data for thisresearch and who must, unfortunately, remain anonymous to preserve confidential-ity. Their participation and dedication is evidence of their commitment and profes-sionalism.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS viiThe Design of the Two Separate But Companion Studies viiThe Objectives of the Two Studies vii
Objectives of Study I: External Evaluation viiiObjectives of Study II: Self-Assessment viiiThe Statewide Study Sample ix
Data Collection Procedures ix
ConclusionsRecommendations xii
PURPOSE OF THE STUDIES 1
Background of the Studies 1
The Design of the Two Separate But Companion Studies 2
Development of the Observation Instrument 3
Objectives of the Two Studies 7
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 8
The Statewide Study Sample 8
Data Collection Procedures 9
Observer Training 9
RESULTS OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS 10
Patterns of Implementation of Program ComponentsBased on Configuration Map 10
Designating An Acceptable Range of Implementation.vs. Levels of PracticeThat Need Improvement 11
Discussion of Technology Support for KERA Initiatives 13
Discussion of Technology Used in the Instructional Process 18
Discussion of Professional Development of School Staff 19
Discussion of School Technology Committee: Function and Processes 22
Discussion of KETS Resources 24
Discussion of Support for KETS (Including the Community) 25
Rater Reliability Between University Researchers and District TechnologyCoordinators 26
Analysis of Subcomponents Related to High Implementation of TechnologyComponents 27
Comparison of High and Low Implementors 29
Results of the Interviews from Sample I: External Evaluation Only 32
iv
CONCLUSIONS FOR STUDY I: EXTERNAL EVALUATION 33
CONCLUSIONS FOR STUDY II: SELF-ASSESSMENT 35
RECOMMENDATIONS 37
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 38
REFERENCES 40
APPENDICES 41
APPENDIX A 42An Innovation Component Configuration Map for Educational Technology
APPENDIX B 43Principal Interview
APPENDIX C 44Teacher Interview
APPENDIX D 45Figure 5. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: TechnologySupport for KERA Iniiiatives Component 46
Figure 6. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: TechnologyUsed in the Instructional Process 47
Figure 7. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: ProfessionalDevelopment of School Staff 48
Figure 8. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: The SchoolTechnology Committee: Function and Process 49
Figure 9. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: KETSResources 50
Figure 10. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: CommunitySupport for KETS 51
Figure 11. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study II: TechnologySupport for KERA Initiatives Component 52
Figure 12. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study II: TechnologyUsed in the Instructional Process 53
Figure 13. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study II: ProfessionalDevelopment of School Staff 54
Figure 14. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study II: The SchoolTechnology Committee: Function and Process 55
Figure 15. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study II: KETSResources 56
Figure 16. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I: CommunitySupport for KETS 57
v
I-4ll
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 1. Implementation Indicators Defined for the KETS Intentions 4
TABLE 2. Number of Districts Represented in Sample by StateEducational Region 8
TABLE 3. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of Technology Support for KERA Initiatives 12
TABLE 4. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents Technology Used in the Instructional Process 14
TABLE 5. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of Professional Development of School Staff 19
TABLE 6. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of School Technology Committee 20
TABLE 6A. Information on Aspects of the School Technology CoordinatorPosition 22
TABLE 7. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of KETS Resources 23
TABLE 8. Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of Support for KETS (Including the Community) 25
TABLE 9. Spearman Rank-Order Coefficients for Study I: External Evaluation 27
TABLE 10. Spearman Rank-Order Coefficients for Study II: Self-Assessment 28
FIGURE 1. Study II: Self-Assessment Data Software Used in Instruction 16
FIGURE 2. StUdy II: Self-Assessment Data Uses of Technology in Instruction 17
FIGURE 3. Comparison of High/Low Implementors for Study I 30
FIGURE 4. Comparison of High/Low Impementors for Study II 31
vi
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF KENTUCKY'SEDUCATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM (KETS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Design of the Two Separate but Companion StudiesThis report presents the results of two separate studies that used the same
research instrument to investigate the implementation of Education Technologyin Kentucky schools for different purposes and employed a different set of datacollectors.
Study I was conducted by trained researchers external to the districts ofthe schools studied. The purpose was to determine the extent of implementation ofEducational Technology statewide as part of a larger effort by the Kentucky Institutefor Education Research (KIER) to assess the implementation of six major KERAprograms.
Study II was conducted by school District Technology Coordinators (DTCs)to assess the progress of Educational Technology in local districts. This study wasconducted for the Kentucky Department of Education to determine the feasibility ofusing configuration maps as a research instrument for self-assessment and formativeplanning for further implementation of the KETS plan.
Fourteen schools were part of both studies to investigate the inter-observerreliability between the data collectors external and internal to the district. Thisfeature of the study design was to test the feasibility of using District TechnologyCoordinators to collect reliable data for multiple purposes in a relatively low-stakesenvironment.
Since the research instrument was the same in both studies, the combined datafrom the companion studies provided more powerful results than either study couldprovide by itself.
Objectives of the Two Studies
The general purpose of both studies was to collect data on the extent of imple-mentation of Educational Technology in schools to provide a "snapshot" of currentpractice. However, the results were to be used for somewhat different purposes.The similarities and differences are presented in the objectives for each study.
vu
Objectives of Study I : External Evaluation
To determine the extent of implementation of the educational technology initia-tive (KETS) in a random sample of 24 randomly selected schools in the eightregions of Kentucky based on external observation and interview data fromuniversity researchers.
To explore the use of the Configuration Map for Education Technology as a re-search tool and as a feedback instrument for ascertaining the extent of implemen-tation of education technology
To describe teachers' and principals' perceptions of the implementation of thetechnology program.
To compare the reliability and utility of the two methods of data collection usingdifferent observers.
To make recommendations for improved practice.
To obtain feedback on ways to improve the Configuration Map for EducationTechnology.
Objectives of Study II: Self-AssessmentTo determine the extent of implementation of the educational technology initia-tive (KETS) in a random sample of 104 schools in 47 districts geographicallydistributed throughout Kentucky based on self-report data from local districttechnology coordinators.
To explore the use of the Configuration Map for Education Technology as a self-assessment tool and as a feedback instrument for planning future implementationstrategies for KETS at the local district level.
To determine the feasibility of using Kentucky's teleconferencing networkfor training local school personnel to collect self-study data on technologyimplementation.
To compare the reliability and utility of the two methods of data collection.
To make recommendations for improved practice.
To obtain feedback on ways to improve the design of the ConfigurationMap for Education Technology
viii
The Statewide Study Sample
Study I: External Evaluation
A random stratified sample of 24 schools was selected and invited to partici-pate in the study: one elementary, one middle, and one high school from each ofKentucky's eight educational regions. The school principal at each selected site wascontacted directly by a university researcher or by the district technology coordinatorwho assisted the researcher. After the initial contact inviting participation and ex-plaining the purpose and nature of the study, follow-up letters of agreement weresent to the school principals with a request for a list of teachers who were knowledge-able about the school's technology program. Two or three teachers were selected bythe researchers from the list provided for on-site interviews.
Study II: Self-Assessment
In late April and early May of 1995 all District Technology Coordinators acrossthe state were invited to participate in the self-assessment study. Forty-seven DistrictTechnology Coordinators responded and agreed to collect data on one elementary,one middle, and one high school in their district. In small districts where there wasonly one elementary, middle, or high school, data were collected on the only schoolavailable at each level. A total of 107 schools agreed to participate in Study II: Self-Assessment, with representation from all eight regions.
To crosscheck the reliability of the university observers in Study I with theinternal District Technology Coordinators in Study II, the data from 14 schools thatwere common to both Sample I and Sample II were compared.
Data Collection Procedures
Study I: External Evaluation
University researchers in May and early June of 1995 visited each of the 24selected sites for one day to observe technology being used in classrooms, computerlaboratories, and media centers. The protocols used were developed in consultationwith faculty from the Instructional Systems Design Program, and the Institute forEducation Reform at the University of Kentucky. Teachers and principals at the studysites were interviewed to obtain their perceptions of the implementation of educa-tional technology in their school.
The interviews were designed to gather supplemental information especiallyin two key areas: technology used in the instructional process and the professionaldevelopment of school staff related to technology: For example, principals wereasked how technology had contributed to the results of KIRIS and teachers were
ix
asked how technology had changed their instructional practices, and to comment ontheir training experiences. The interview protocol was open-ended and researchersrecorded responses directly on the interview forms.
Study H: Self-Assessment
District Technology Coordinators (DTCs) visited the schools in their district,which were randomly selected for the study. DTCs made observations, interviewedteachers and reviewed documents to complete the Configuration Map instrument.However, the DTCs did not conduct the more-extended interviews using the teacherand principal intervie. protocols described above for Study I.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Schools across Kentucky have shown significant progress in building the capacityto make technology and technology networks available to students, teachers andadministrators. All districts are connected to the KETS network.
2. Statewide, schools have made the most progress in implementing aspects of KETSrelated to school's structures of planning and organization:
implementing technology that is consistent with the school's technology plan,implementing technology planning committees that represent allstake holders,developing plans for technology and professional development that areconsistent with the school's Transformation Plan.
3. There were wide variations in the extent of implementation of the 20 identifiedsubcomponents of education technology and KETS among the schools in both Study Iand Study II. These differences were most evident in the use of technology applica-tions and options available for professional development.
4. While there has been an increase in the applications of technology for instruction, asignificant effort for development and training will be needed for technology to reachits full potential as a tool for teaching and learning. Word processing received consid-erable use in the study schools. Spreadsheets and databases are beginning to be apart of regular instruction. However, telecommunications was rarely observed beingused for instruction or communication.
5. Basic classroom connectivity is deficient. Phones in classrooms or connections toInternet services are lacking in most schools.
6. Factors that differentiated schools that were high implementors of educationtechnology from low implementors were related directly to classroom instruction and
1 4
professional development:a) The flexible scheduling of training options.b) The availability of software applications to individuals.c) The extent to which there was a technology-rich environment.d) Professional development options in technology.e) The extent to which technology is used in the instructional process.
High implementation seems to be highly related to components of KETS that focus onclassroom instruction and individual classroom teachers. Components that relate toschool structures such as the development of a technology plan or the composition ofthe school technology committee seem less important as indicators of high imple-mentation.
7. While professional development was found to be associated with high implemen-tation of education technology, only one-quarter (25%) of schools in the sample areproviding a rich array of professional development options and only one-third over-all (30%) provide ongoing, flexible professional development suited to individualneeds.
8. Principals are generally positive about the potential of technology and committedto providing students with technology. However, many are frustrated and apprehen-sive regarding the time needed to develop technological expertise and how to obtainthe needed matching dollars to be eligible for KETS funds. Teachers also were posi-tive about the possible applications of technology to instruction and believed it wasessential that students have access to technology to prepare them for an increasinglytechnological workplace. Like the principals, teachers were frustrated with the lack oftime to learn to use computers. Teachers who used technology more extensivelyreported changes in their teaching practices that provided more support of activestudent learning and less direct teaching methods such as lecturing.
9. The Innovation Component Map for Education Technology proved to be a usefulinstrument for gathering data on the variation of practice that exists in Kentuckyschools related to the implementation of Education Technology The reliability datacomparing the ratings of external researchers and district technology coordinatorswere encouraging for the first-time use of a qualitative instrument. Feedback fromresearchers provided useful data to revise and improve the Configuration Map forEducation Technology.
10. The use of Kentucky's two-way video teleconferencing network was an efficientand cost-effective method of training data collectors. In the relatively short 1/2 daytraining, the DTCs were able to report findings that correlated 76 percent of the timewith professional researchers. The cost-benefit analysis is very favorable. Ratherthan paying upwards of $2,000.00 for travel and expenses, the video sites were avail-able for less than $30/hour ($180.00).
xi
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Kentucky Department of Education should identify schools that are highimplementors and demonstrate exemplary practices in specific components of Educa-tion Technology. Strategies should be developed to disseminate succesSful ap-proaches of implementation and utilize the expertise in high-implementing school toprovide technical assistance to schools needing help.
2. All schools in the state should conduct a self-assessment using the ConfigurationMap for Education Technology, or similar diagnostic instrument, to determine relativestrong components of Education Technology and specific components most needingattention. The Kentucky Department of Education should provide training in the useof the Configuration Map to all District Technology Coordinators.
3. Schools should focus more development and training efforts on broad applica-tions of technology for instruction. jpecifically in the use of databases and telecom-munications.
4. Schools should design professional development in Education Technology thatprovides more of a variety of options for staff throughout the year and that is inte-grated (a part of and not separate from) with other professional development effortsto improve instruction. Also, schools should make more use of networks to deliveron-line instruction and to promOte information sharing among individuals.
5. The Kentucky Department of Education should identify and target schools that arelow implementors for the purpose of providing assistance to upgrade resources andsupporting equity in educational opportunities.
6. All schools should make networking within their schools and with other schoolsa high priority. The Kentucky Department of Education should make available to
schools assistance in networking through the Regional Service Centers and throughidentified schools highly involved in networking.
7. School principals should involve School Technology Coordinators more dir ?ttly aspart of the school's instructional planning team for the purpose of using technologyfor instruction.
8. All schools need to develop and maintain more effective public information andoutreach strategies to support the Kentucky Education Technology System (KETS).
THE IMPLEMENTATION OFKENTUCKY'S TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
PURPOSE OF THE STUDIES
Background
In 1986, 66 property-poor Kentucky school districts sued the State SchoolBoard alleging that Kentucky schools were inefficient and funding for Kentuckyschools was inequitable. The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs anddirected the legislature to enact education reforms that addressed both efficiency andequity The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), passed by the Kentucky legisla-ture in March 1990, mandated a complete restructuring of the Kentucky educationalsystem in the areas of finance, c3ovemance, and curriculum. One component of thecurriculum restructuring included a comprehensive technology initiative that wouldsupport instruction and communication. The technology statute, KRS 156.666, estab-lished a Council for Education Technology. Under law the council was charged todevelop a five-year master plan for education technology, that defined the KentuckyEducation Technology System (KETS). KETS is designed to assist Kentucky schools intheir effort to:
1. improve learning and teaching and the ability to meet the needs ofindividual students while increasing student achievement;
2. improve curriculum delivery to help meet the need for educational equityacross the state;
3. improve the delivery of professional development;
4. improve the efficiency and productivity of administrators; and,
5. encourage development by the private sector and acquisition by districts oftechnology and applications appropriate for education.
KETS is an extensive plan for statewide implementation that includes (a)specifications of technical aspects such as the requirements for computer hardwareand software, video capacity, and wiring specifications for communication technolo-gies; (b) recommendations for instructional uses of technology such as individualiz-ing instruction, remediation, and collaborative learning via electronic networks;(c) hardware and software requirements for managerial uses of technology such asdistrict reporting and delivery of professional development; and, (d) recommenda-tions for the use of technology to facilitate communication between the school and thecommunity.
The state's technology initiative required extensive foundational work andtime was lost initially in its implementation. Standards for the amount and kinds oftechnology needed to be developed prior to the actual delivery of goods and services
1
into the schools. The KETS standards are documented in several plans such as theKETS Implementation Plan, and the KETS Architectural Standards and Technical Specifica-tions. The KERA technology initiative is an extensive technical and instructionalundertaking. In order for technology to be used, it must be selected with the particu-lar needs of the school, the teachers, and the students in mind. These needs rangefrom training and professional development of staff to physical plant considerationssuch as space, wiring, fiber-optic cabling, climate control for equipment, and networkdesigns.
An appropriate analogy to the KERA technology initiative is the implementa-tion of books during the 15th century. At that time, the invention of moveable typerevolutionized the production of texts-and made print media accessible to the generalpublic for instruction and other purposes. Prior to using the content contained inthe texts several steps had to occur. First, quantities of paper had to be made availablein large supply. Handwritten material had to be set in type and the books printed.Books had to be distributed. But having the books available would not be enough; theusers also had to be taught to read. In addition, their school rooms had to be changed.They would need rooms that admitted adequate light to read. Teaching was affected.Teachers who formerly relied on oral teaching methods would now work fromprinted texts with students who had read the same materials. Many steps were takento implement printed media in instruction and many changes occurred, over time.
KERA is a funded legislative mandate. The reform act earmarked a dedicatedtechnology fund to support the initiative. While some districts had availed them-selves of the designated technology funds previously, the 1993-94 school year markedthe first large-scale round of submissions of District Technology Plans, prepared inaccordance with standards. These plans defined the current technology status of eachdistrict with reference to the standards and outlined districts' unmet needs. The planswere reviewed by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and if approved adistrict procured the equipment using a 50/50 percent match of state technologyfunds to local funds. According to the KDE plan reviewers there has been an infusionof technology into the schools since the approval of all the districts' technology plansin 1993-4.
The Design of the Two Separate but Companion Studies
This report presents the results of two separate studies that used the same researchinstrument to investigate the implementation of Education Technology in Kentuckyschools for different purposes and employed a different set of data collectors.
Study I was conducted by trained researchers external to the districts of theschools studied. The purpose was to determine the extent of implementation of Educa-tional Technology statewide as part of a larger effort by the Kentucky Institute for Educa-tion Research (KIER) to assess the implementation of six major KERA programs.
2
Study II was conducted by school District Technology Coordinators (DTCs) toassess the progress of Educational Technology in local districts. This study was conductedfor the Kentucky Department of Education to determine the feasibility of using a researchinstrument (Configuration Maps) for self-assessment and formative planning for furtherimplementation of the KETS plan.
Fourteen schools were part of both studies to investigate the inter-observer reli-ability between the data collectors external and internal to the district. This feature of thestudy design was to test the feasibility of using District Technology Coordinators tocollect reliable data for multiple purposes in a relatively low-stakes environment.
Since the research instrument was the same in both studies, the combined datafrom the companion studies provided more powerful results than either study couldprovide by itself.
Development of the Observation Instrument A Component ConfigurationMap for Education Technology
The development of the observation instrument for this study began in May1994. Roger Pankratz, from the Kentucky Institute for Education Research, conveneda meeting .of district technology coordinators, regional KETS coordinators, universityresearchers, and personnel from the Kentucky Department of Education. The modelfor the observation instrument is based on the work of Hall and Hord (1987), whohave done extensive research on school change. The development consultant, Dr. EdCaffarella from the University of Northern Colorado at Boulder, who has extensiveexperience with the model employed for the instrument, facilitated map developmentat that meeting and has given feedback on iterations of the map. At this work session,an initial draft of a component configuration map was constructed and field tested intwo school districts. Feedback from three additional field tests was incorporated intosubsequent drafts. Using these drafts, representatives from these key stakeholdergroups further revised and refined the instrument during the fall of 1994.
The developers of the Configuration Map for Education Technology consulted theguidelines and standards for technology contained in various documents available fromthe Kentucky Department of Education and the University of Kentucky's Institute forEducation Reform. Among these were: The KETS Implementation Plan, which outlinesschedules, project descriptions, project management, costs, and policy issues; the KETSArchitectural Standards and Technical Specifications, which specifies the standards for bothhardware and software; the KETS Blueprint and Selection Guide, which establishes criteriafor procuring hardware and software; and the KETS Building Wiring Standards, whichprovides guidelines for the wiring to enhance connectivity for computer networks. TheKETS plan is unusual because it not only details technology to bejnatallesi in the schoolsbut it also makes recommendations that technology be used to support various instruc-tional, management, and equity goals. Using these documents as guides, the intentions ofthe technology initiative could be operationalized by describing the key components attheir highest level of implementation. Table 1 defines the implementation indicators forfive major objectives of the KETS program.
3
Table 1Implementation Indicators Defined for the KETS Intentions.
KETS Intentions
1. Improve learning and teaching and theability to meet the needs of individual stu-dents while increasing student achievement;
2. Improve curriculum delivery to help meetthe need for educational equity across thestate;
3. Improve the delivery of professionaldevelopment;
4. Improve the efficiency and productivity ofadministrators; and,
5. Encourage development by the privatesector and acquisition by districts of technol-ogy and applications appropriate for educa-tion.
Implementation Indicators Defined
A Technology Support for KERA indicator woulddefine the extent to which technology is availableto students and teachers; variations in the typesof technology and software; and evidence thatimplementation is focusing on the needs ofindividuals.
Indicators for measures of achievement were notthe focus of the map for this implementationstudy.
A Technoloay Support for KERA indicator woulddefine the extent to which technology is availableto students and teachers. Variations in the typesof technology and software are evidence thatimplementation is focusing on curriculum and theneeds of individuals.
Indicator gives evidence of technology used inthe instruction on a regular basis.
A Professional Development of School Staffindicator would define activities that train users inthe use of technology and use technology as partof other KERA trainings.
A KETS Resources indicator would define theextent of networking resources available to theCentral Office, Library, and classrooms and ifthese resources will be installed. Training will beplanned or has occurred. The system will be inuse.
A School Technoloay Committee indicator woulddefine the extent of involvement of communitystakeholders and existing documentation thatshows coordination of efforts with other curricu-lum and planning activities.
Community Support for KETS would be indicatedby events, documents, and activities that relate tothe initiative.
4
20
Six implementation indicators, with 20 subcomponents, were adopted as catego-ries for a last draft of the map. These indicators are: (1) technology support for KERAinitiatives, (2) technology used in the instruedonal process, (3) professional developmentfor school staff, (4) the school technology committee: function and processes, (5) KETSresources, and (6) support for KETS (including community support).
Technology Support for KERA Initiatives contains subcomponents that indi-cate if technology is available to meet the standards of the technology initiative and iftechnology is a vehicle for equity; that is, it is accessible and various modes of tech-nology and software are available to meet the needs of individuals.
Technology Used in the Instructional Process contains subcomponents thatelicit information regarding the extent to which there is a technology-rich environ-ment to which students have flexible access in accordance with the KETS standardand if that technology is being used for instruction.
Professional Develgpment for School-Staff contains subcomponents that indi-cate the extent to which training is provided and if that training is flexible or indi-vidualized to meet staff needs. A subcomponent for the function and processes of theschool technology committee is included in this category. The school technologycommittee has a key role in the implementation of technology. The needs for a par-ticular school and patterns of implementation (such as installation of computers inlabs versus classrooms first) are determined by the committee. Thus examining itsfunctions and processes are important to understanding implementation.
School Technology Committee: Function and Processes contains subcompo-nents that describe the composition of the School Technology Committee and itsfunction and role in the technology planning process. Since planning for technology iscritical to its implementation, examining the processes of the School TechnologyCommittee is key to understanding technology use in a school.
Resources for KETS contains subcomponents that describe technology imple-mentation in the library/media center, the central office, and of the installation ofphones in classrooms. These are areas that provide in-school resources as well asconnectivity to outside electronic networks and resources.
Support for KETS contains subcomponents that describe broader-based commu-nity support as well as adjunct programs in schools (such as providing computers toteachers during the summer for development) that may exist to support implementation.
Following a seminar /feedback session attended by District Technology Coor-dinators at the Kentucky Educational Technology Conference in February of 1995, theConfiguration Map used for this study was finalized.
The instrument design was based on the Hall and Hord (1987) model of anInnovation Component Configuration Map (see Appendix A: An Innovation Compo-nent Configuration Map for Education Technology). The Map identifies key compo-nents of an innovation and the variations that occur in the implementation of the
5
21
innovation. The KERA technology initiative, operationalized according to the KETSrequirements, was considered to be the innovation and the various aspects of theKETS plan were considered to be the program components. The different ways inwhich teachers might implement each component were considered to be the varia-tions. Descriptions of variations were developed for the following components andsubcomponents:
Technology Support for KERA InitiativesTechnology available to individualsConsistency with the school technology planApplication of technology
Technology Used in the Instructional ProcessThe learning environmentExtent of technology application in the instructional process
Professional Development of School StaffConsistency among Professional Development Plan, the Technology Planand the School Transformation PlanProfessional development options in technologyScheduling of technology training optionsDesign of technology training
School Technology Committee: Function and ProcessesComposition of school technology committeeDevelopment of the School Technology Action PlanThe involvement in decision makingProfessional development of the school technology coordinatorCompensation for the school technology coordinatorAdditional opportunities for the school technology coordinator
Kentucky Education Technology System (KETS) ResourcesThe library/media centerPhones in classroomsCentral Office
Support for KETS (Including the Community)Group support for KETS implementationSchool-based activities that support KETS
6
Objectives of the Two StudiesThe general purpose of both studies was to collect data on the extent of imple-
mentation of Educational Technology in schools to provide a "snapshot" of currentpractice. However, the results were to be used for somewhat different purposes. Thesimilarities and differences are presented in the objectives for each study.
Objectives of Study I : External Evaluation
To determine the extent of implementation of the educational technology initia-tive (KETS) in a random sample of 24 randomly selected schools in the eightregions of Kentucky based on external observation and interview data fromuniversity researchers.
To explore the use of the Configuration Map for Education Technology as a re-search tool and as a feedback instrument for ascertaining the extent of implemen-tation of education technology.
To describe teachers' and principals' perceptions of the implementation of thetechnology program.
To compare the reliability and utility of the two methods of data collection usingdifferent observers.
To make recommendations for improved practice.
To obtain feedback on ways to improve the Configuration Map for EducationTechnology.
Objectives of Study II: Self-Assessment
To determine the extent of implementation of the educational technology initia-tive (KETS) in a random sample of 104 schools in 47 districts geographicallydistributed throughout Kentucky based on self-report data from local districttechnology coordinators.
To explore the use of the Configuration Map for Education Technology as a self-assessment tool and as a feedback instrument for planning future implementationstrategies for KETS at the local district level.
To determine the feasibility of using Kentucky's teleconferencing network for traininglocal school personnel to collect self-study data on technology implementation.
To compare the reliability and utility of the two methods of data collection.
To make recommendations for improved practice.
To obtain feedback on ways to improve the design of the Configuration Map forEducation Technology.
7
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The Statewide Study Sample
Study I: External Evaluation
A random stratified sample of 24 schools was selected and invited to partici-pate in the study: one elementary, one middle, and one high school from each ofKentucky's eight educational regions. The school principal at each selected site wascontacted directly by a university researcher or by the district technology coordinatorwho assisted the researcher. After the initial contact inviting participation and ex-plaining the purpose and nature of the study, follow-up letters of agreement weresent to the school principals with a request for a list of teachers who were knowledge-able about the school's technology program. Two or three teachers were selected bythe researchers from the list provided for on-site interviews.
Study II: Self Assessment
In late April and early May of 1995 all District Technology Coordinators acrossthe state were invited to participate in the self-assessment study. Forty-seven DistrictTechnology Coordinators responded and agreed to collect data on one elementaryone middle, and one high school in their district. In small districts where there wasonly one elementary, middle, or high school, data were collected on the only schoolavailable at each level. A total of 107 schools agreed to participate in Study II: Self-Assessment, with representation from all eight regions. Table 2 shows the number ofschool districts across the state by region that agreed to participate in the study. Re-gion 3 shows only two districts participating; however, this is because this regionincludes Jefferson County (Louisville) and has only two districts in the region. Of 107schools in Study Sample II, 37 percent were elementary schools, 28 percent weremiddle school, and 35 percent were high schools.
Table 2Number of Districts Represented in Sample by State
Educational Region
Region Location Of Regional Service Center Number of Districts1 Murray 92 Bowling Green 83 Louisville 24 Covington 75 Lexington 56 Corbin 57 Morehead 68 Prestonsburg 5
8
2 4
To crosscheck the reliability of the external university observers with the inter-nal District Technology Coordinators, the ratings from 14 schools that were commonto both Sample I and Sample II were compared.
Data Collection Procedures
Study I: External Evaluation
University researchers visited each of the 24 selected sites for one day to ob-serve technology being used in classrooms, computer laboratories, and media centers.The protocols used were developed in consultation with faculty from the Instruc-tional Systems Design Program and the Institute for Education Reform at the Univer-sity of Kentucky. Teachers and principals at the study sites were interviewed to obtaintheir perceptions of the implementatiori of educational technology in 4heir school.
The interviews were designed to gather supplemental information especiallyin two key areas: technology used in the instructional process and the professionaldevelopment of school staff related to technology. For example, principals were askedhow technology had contributed to the results of KIRIS and teachers were asked howtechnology had changed their instructional practices and to comment on their train-ing experiences. The interview protocol was open-ended and researchers recordedresponses directly on the interview forms (see Appendices B and C).
Study II: Self-Assessment
District Technology Coordinators (DTCs) visited the schools in their districtwhich were randomly selected for the study. DTCs made observations, interviewedteachers, reviewed documents and completed the Configuration Map instrument.However, the DTCs did not conduct the more-extended interviews using the teacherand principal interview protocols described above for Study I.
Observer Training
Study I: External Evaluation
Observers for Study I were selected from Kentucky universities based on theirknowledge and research background in technology. For example, one observer was asociologist whose research has focused on technology and occupational dynamics inrural schools. Another observer is a former high school teacher and now a businesseducation professor teaching in a computer science department. Yet another is anexpert in distance learning at a regional university.
University observers were sent the Configuration Maps and protocol materi-als. After an opportunity to study these materials, training was conducted individu-
9
2
ally with observers in conference with the project director. Three of the seven observ-ers were experienced with the use of Configuration Maps and had previously beentrained in their use for studies of the Primary Program and School-Based DecisionMaking.
Study II: Self-Assessment
The DTC observers were solicited on a voluntary basis by the KETS coordina-tors in each of the eight State Regional Service Centers. The DTCs were highly famil-iar with the KETS mandates and requirements and have first-hand knowledge of theschools in their districts.
The training of the DTC observers consisted of one three-hour training sessionthat was offered on two separate days to accommodate schedules. The training wasconducted using the statewide telecommunications system at the interactive videosites in Lexington, Hazard, Ashland, Frankfort, Murray, Bowling Green andMadisonville. The principal investigator conducted the trainings and began with thedevelopment process for the observational instrument and the rationale for using theInnovation Component Configuration Map as the data-collection instrument. TheConfiguration Map components and variations in practice were explained in detail.The observers then watched several video vignettes of teachers, students, and admin-istrators using technology in their classroom or office. After viewing the tape andmarking the map, the observers discussed their ratings, the rationale for their deci-sions. The final step in the process was to reach consensus on the level of practice.
In a few cases DTCs were unable to attend the telecommunications sessions.For these observers, videotapes of the training (which included the videotaped class-room examples) and individual instruction were used. Feedback and discussions ofthe observer's ratings were conducted with the principal investigator via phone.
RESULTS OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWSFOR THE TWO STUDY SAMPLES
Patterns of Implementation of Program Components Based on theConfiguration Map
The results from the observational component for the study are organizedaround the six implementation indicators of the Innovation Component Configura-tion Map for Education Technology: Technology Support for KERA Initiatives, TechnologyUsed in the Instructional Process, Professional Development of School Staff, The SchoolTechnology Committee, The KETS Resources, and Support for KETS From the Community.The Components and Subcomponents of Education Technology are presented in
lo
26
Tables 3-8. Each table represents the percent of schools at different levels of imple-mentation for one of the six components and shows the data for its particular sub-components.
Designating An Acceptable Range of Implementation Vs. Levels of Practice thatNeed Improvement
The data from the companion studies represent an initial evaluation of schools'implementation of KETS guidelines. The Configuration Map instrument definesimplementation patterns in schools that are generally consistent with an acceptablerange as judged by researchers, practitioners, and staff from the Kentucky Depart-ment of Education. To highlight the extent to which acceptable patterns currentlyexist in Kentucky schools the tables that follow are divided with a dotted line todesignate an acceptable range of implementation vs. levels of practice that needimprovement.
Schools rated with implementation patterns A and B (which are to the left ofthe dotted lines in Tables 3 through 8) were implementing the components of thetechnology program in acceptable ways, whereas schools which were rated withpatterns C, D, and E comprise a group in need of improvement. It is important to notethat schools whose practices fall in the B range have made good progress but stillneed to continue to strive to demonstrate the most acceptable level of implementa-tion. Following each data table, summary discussions are given for both Study Iexternal evaluation and Study II self-assessment. The major similarities and differ-ences between the two data sets are described.
The reader should remember that Study I: External Evaluation represents datacollected by university observers from 24 schools randomly selected in the eightregions across the state. Study II: Self-Assessment represents data collected by DTCswho volunteered to participate in the study. Fourteen schools were observed indepen-dently by both university observers and DTCs.
1 1
TABLE 3Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for the
Subcomponents of Technology Support for KERA InitiativesStudy I N=24 Schools, Study II N=107 Schools
Technology Availability to IndividualsA
A wide variety of technologies is
available for learning,
management, and
communication.
Technologies are available in
sufficient quantity to promote
widespread use and include
computers, telephone, VCR,
Videodisc and network access.
Study I 25%Study II 23%
A selection of technologies is
available for learning,
management, and
communication, but the
selection is limited by either
access to the technology or the
number available.
42%53%
A limited number of technologies
is availalNe for learning,
management, and
communication. Access is
difficult (e.g., phone available
and only in teachers lounge)
and includes few technology
options kriuding only one or two
of the following: computers etc.
33%23%
Little or no technology is
available for learning,
management, and
communication. There are no
(or few) phones in classrooms.
no (or few) personal computers,
camcorders, VCRs, etc.
0%1%
Applications of Technology
AThere is a broad array of
software applications (more than
10) in use for instruction,
information networking,
research, management, and
planning. Most employees,
students and parents use basic
productivity packages, CD
reference material, e-mail, etc.
Study I 25%Study II 58%
There is a variety of software
applications (5-10) in use in the
school for instruction,
management, and information
networking. The majority (more
than 2/3) of employees, and
students use productivity
packages, CD reference
materials, e-mail, etc.
25%32%
There are several software
applications (3-5) in use in the
school for instruction,
management, and information
networking. Some (more than
1/3) employees, and students
use productivity packages, CD
reference materials, e-mail, etc.
42%7%
There is a limited number of
applications (0-2) in use in the
school for instructions,
management, and information
networking. Only a few (1/3 or
less) of employees, and students
use productivity packages, CD
reference materials, e-mail, etc.
8%3%
Consistency of Available Technologywith School Technology Plan
AThe technology present in the
school fully reflects the diffusion
of technology laid out in the
school's current technology plan.
For example, it computers are
available oft( in labs, is the
school's plan to spend KETS
money first on labs?
Study 1 42%Study II 40%
The technology present in the
school partially reflects the
diffusion of technology laid out
in the school's current
technology plan.
58%46%
The technology present in the
school runs counter to the
diffusion of techr.ology laid out
in the school's current
technology plan.
0%14%
The technology present in the
school indicates the diffusion of
technology laid out in the
school's current technology plan
has not begun in any way.
1 2
Discussion of Technology Support For KERA Initiatives
Schools in both study samples were providing a wide range of technologiesthat were available to teachers and students. DTCs, however, judged a larger percentof their schools in the acceptable range in this subcomponent than the researchersfound for schools in Study I.
This difference between the schools in Study I and Study II was extremelylarge for the Applications of Technology subcomponent. Whereas researchers externalto the school found only 50 percent of their school at the acceptable range on thissubcomponent, DTCs judged 90 percent to be providing an acceptable array of soft-ware applications. It is not known whether this marked discrepancy resulted fromdifferences in understanding of the levels of implementation or whether DTCs gavetheir schools higher ratings because of their familiarity with the applications of tech-nology available.
A strong majority of schools in both studies were judged to have Consistencyof Available Technology with the School Technology Plan. While 14 percent of DTCsjudge the consistency between practice and plans in their schools to be less than theacceptable range, most schools were judged to be "on target" with implementing theirtechnology plans.
1 3
TABLE 4Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for the Subcomponent
of Technology Used in the Instructional ProcessStudy I N=24 Schools, Study II N=107 Schools
Extent to Which There is aTechnology-Rich LearningEnvironment
AComputers and other
appropriate technology
are located in areas that
enable all students to
have flexible (often
simultaneous) access to
computers during
instructional activities.
Students help each other.
Study I 29%Study II 35%
Computers and other
appropriate technology
are located in areas that
enable many (more than
2/3) students to have
flexible (often
simultaneous) access to
computers during
instructional activities.
Mostly students help
each other with some
teacher aid.
29%28%
Computers and other
appropriate technology
are located in areas that
enable many (up to 1/3)
students access to
computers, but disrupt
other instructional
actiOies. Teacher
primarily helps students
on the computers.
25%28%
Computers and other
appropriate technology
are not available or
located in areas that do
not enable students to
have flexible access
during instructional
activities. No help is given
if a student is using a
computer.
17%9%
Extent of TechnologyApplication in theInstructional Process
AA variety of technology
applications are regularly
used as ongoing elements
in the instructional
process.
Study I 21%Study II 16%
Several technology
applications are regulady
used as ongoing elements
in the instructional
process.
33%
45%
One or two technology
applications are regularly
used as ongoing
elements in the
instructional process.
25%25%
One or two technology
applications are
occasionally used as
ongoing elements in the
instructional process.
17%13%
Technology applications
are seldom used as
ongoing elements in the
instructional process.
4%1%
1 4
Discussion of Technology Used in the Instructional Process
From one-half to two-thirds of schools in both study samples were judged toprovide a Technology-Rich Learning Environment along with the Use of Technologyfor Instruction in the acceptable range of practice. However, this also means that one-third to one-half of Kentucky schools are not operating in the acceptable range. Thesefindings clearly identify an area where assistance and staff development are neededto bring more schools into the acceptable range of using technology for instruction.
Types of Software Used in Instruction
Observers for both study samples recorded the extent of use of six differenttypes of software. Figure 1 on the following page shows the extent of use reported inStudy II. As can be seen, the extent of use of these types of software is very similarfor both study samples. From Figure 1 it is clear that word processor software by fargets the most use (several times daily by a majority of schools). Databases, spread-sheets and electronic instructions materials (e.g., commercially available compactdiscs) are generally used weekly or twice monthly. Telecommunications and multi-media production software are used the least (monthly, if at all).
Instructional Purpose for Which Software is Used
Observers in both studies also recorded how software was being used forinstruction and the frequency of inStructional uses. Figure 2 on page 17 shows thefrequency with which the 107 schools use software for seven different instructionalpurposes in Study II. The instructional use for Word Processing Tasks (such as com-position or revision) is clearly the front runner with several times daily use in mostschools. The use of software for portfolio development and storage of informationalso is a daily occurrence. The remaining four instructional purposes (i.e., analysis ofdata, management of instruction, planning for instruction and record keeping) all getvaried but at least weekly use by most schools. While the uses of software for instruc-tion are not as frequent or extensive as they need to be for Kentucky's high expecta-tions, there is evidence that instruction in schools is changing as a result of KETS.
1 5
31
Fig
ure 1
Stu
dy II: Sel
f-A
sses
smen
t
Dat
a
SO
FT
WA
RE
US
ED
IN INS
TR
UC
TIO
N
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
rm .
f
Wor
d
Spr
eads
heet
Dat
abas
e
Tel
ecom
mun
ica-
Mul
timed
ia
Ele
ctro
nic
Pro
cess
or
tions
prod
uctio
n/pr
e-
Inst
ruct
iona
l
sent
atio
n
Mat
eria
l
111
Sev
eral
times 0 D
aily
111
Wee
kly
daily
and
exte
nded
use
1111
Onc
erfw
ice El
Sel
dom
or
Mon
thly
neve
r
used
1 63"4
Figure 2Study II: Self-Assessment Data
USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN INSTRUCTION
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Word Analysis of Storage of Portfolio Management Planning forprocessing data/problem Information Storage and of Instruction Instruction
solving Development
111 Several times
daily and
extended use
0 Daily 1111 Weekly
111 Once/Twice fa Seldom or
Monthly never used
iv
Keeping
Records
17
Discussion of Professional Development of School Staff
There is a high level of consistency between the district technology plans, theprofessional development plan, and the school transformation plan in both Study Iand Study II. Alignment is supposed to exist among the plans and apparently it does.The DTCs, however, reported a 16 percent higher rating in the unacceptable rangethan the researchers, perhaps because they are more familiar with the coordinationbetween plans and actual practice.
Between one-half and one-quarter of schools reported a variety of professionaldevelopment opportunities throughout the year. This means that one-half to three-quarters of schools are not providing options that meet the needs of teachers. Hereagain, the DTCs are more critical than the university observers, reporting 15 percentmore schools at a highly unacceptable level of professional development options.
Flexible scheduling of training options occurs in one-half to two-thirds ofschools in Study I and Study II. Clearly, the lack of flexibility in scheduling in up toone-half of schools has implications for the access to training and its effectiveness.
From one-half to two-thirds of schools were judged to integrate the design oftechnology training with other professional development activities. This appears highgiven the fact that use of specific software applications in instruction is somewhatlimited. It will be important to determine why there is not more use of technology ininstruction if most of the schools integrate technology training in professional devel-opment activities.
1 8
TABLE 5Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of Professional Development of School Staff
Study I N= 24 Schools, Study II N=107 Schools
Consistency Among ProfessionalDevelopment Plant Technology Plan/ .
School Transformation PlanA
All three plans are well
correlated and fully address
needs identified in the school
technology plan.
Study I 67%Study 11 46%
Plans are partially correlated.
Professional development
activities somewhat address the
needs identified in the school
technology plan.
33%38%
Plans have little correlation.
Professional development
activities slightly address the
needs identified in the school
technology plan.
Plans have no correlation.
Professional development
activities do not address the
needs identified in the school
technology plan.
0% 0%15% 1%
Professional DevelopmentOptions in Technology
AA rich array of professional
development options are
available to school personnel,
parents, and support staff.
Study I 25%Study II 26%
A variety of professional
development options are
available to teachers and
support staff.
50%33%
Several professional
development options are
available to teachers,
administrators, and staff
throughout the year.
One or two planned training
options are made available to
teachers each year.
21% 4%26% 15%
Scheduling of Training OptionsA
Professional development is
ongoing with a rich variety of
options designed to meet
individual schedules and needs.
Study I 30%Study II 22%
A variety of professional
development opportunities are
scheduled throughout the year.
32%32%
Professional development
options for technology are
scheduled several times each
year.
Training scheduling is sparse
and inflexible.
16% 21%29% 17%
Design of Technology TrainingA
Technology training is integrated
into professional development
activities addressing other areas.
Study I 63%Study II 48%
Technology training occurs
independently of other topics.
37%49%
Technology training does not
occur during the year.
0%3%
19
TABLE 6Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for the
Subcomponents School Technology Committee: Function & ProcessStudy I N=24 Schools, Study II N=107 Schools
Composition of the School TechnologyCommittee
A BThe committee represents all The committee represents most
stakeholders. stakeholders.
CThe committee represents only
a few stakeholders.
DThe committee does not exist.
Study I 21% 71% 8% 0%Study II 25% 61% 13% 1%
Development of theSchool Technology Plan
A BThe School Technology Action The committee has some input
Plan is a product of the into the School Technology
committee in collaboration with Action Plan.
all stakeholders.
Study I 50% 37%Study I I 58% 32%
CThe committee reviewed the
School Technology Action Plan.
9%7%
DThe committee had little or no
input into the School Technology
Action Plan.
4%3%
Involvement in Decision MakingA
The committee is directly
involved in the functioning of
schoolbased decision making
councils, school transformation
committee, & professional
development planning.
Study I 21%Study II 40%
BThe committee has some input
into the functioning of school-
based decision making councils,
school transformation committee
& professional development
planning.
66%46%
CThe committee does not have
input into the functioning of
school-based decision making
councils, school transformation
committee & professional
development planning.
13%14%
20
3C
Discussion of School Technology Committee: Function and Processes
Most schools (nearly 90%) in both Study I and Study II have school technologycommittees that are representative of community stakeholders and that have inputinto the School Technology Action Plan. These functions are mandated by KETS andthere is excellent progress toward full implementation. It is important to note theselevels of representation and input may exist "on paper" and may not reflect the levelof actual participation and/or the kinds of input provided by the school technologycommittee. For example, input may entail relatively low levels of input such as thereading of or commenting on a professional development plan or the input may bemore involved throughout the entire planning process.
Between one-half and two-thirds of schools report the technology committeehas some input into the functioning of school-based decision making, but only 21percent of Study I schools and 40 percent of Study II schools report direct representa-tion in site-based decision making. These levels of involvement in actual decisionmaking, as opposed to planning, may have implications for implementing plans.Since site-based councils must allocate resources for KETS, the nearly 15 percent ofschools that have no input into school-based decision making may not be able tosecure the needed funds to implement education technology needed for the school.
Observers in both studies also examined aspects of the School TechnologyCoordinator (STC) position. Each school is mandated to have a STC, but no guide-lines are provided as to the qualifications of the STC or the selection process. The STCis designated as the convener of the School Technology Committee and as the tech-nology troubleshooter in the school, regardless of skill level or expertise. Since theposition is pivotal to implementation, the observers inquired about compensation forthe STC, if additional training was available, the extent of involvement in decisionmaking, and if the STC was actually involved in either providing training to schoolstaff or in instructional planning that integrated technology. Table 6A shows thattwo-thirds of the School Technology Coordinators are compensated. Observersdetermined that the primary compensation is release time. However, over 80 percentof schools in both Study I and Study II report the STC receives nsLadditional training,is not involved in school decision making and does not have any official responsibil-ity for instructional issues.
Implications of these findings suggest that the benefits to the implementationprocess of education technology would be enhanced if more attention was given toprofessional development of the STCs and if they became a more integral part of theinstructional team in schools.
21
3 t.,
TABLE 6A
Information on Aspects of the School TechnologyCoordinator Position
Compensation for the School Technology Coordinator
Study I
Study II
yES.
65% I 35%63% 37%
Additional Opportunities for the School Technology Coordinator
Additional Training
yEa N_Q
Study I 8% I 92%Study II
5% 95%
Decision Making
YES N_Q1
Study I 20% I 80%Study II 16% I 84%
I
Responsibilities on Instructional Issues
YES N01
Study I 17%I
83%
Study II 21% I 79%I
22
3S
TABLE 7Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for the
Subcomponents of KETS ResourcesStudy I N=24 Schools, Study Il N=107 Schools
The Library Media Center
A BFull access and throughout Some access and throughout
school to electronic instructional school to electronic instructional
materials, online search materials, on-fine search
services, Internet, & electronic services, Internet, & electronic
catalogue and circulation. catalogue and circulation,
Study I 8% 33%Study II 15% 22%
Climited access and throughout
school to electronic instructional
materials, on4ine search
services, Intemet, & electronic
catalogue art circulation,
55%36%
DNo access and throughout school
to electronic instructional
materials, online search
services, Internet, & electronic
catalogue and cimulation.
4%27%
Phones in ClassroomsA B
There are phones in all There are phones in some
classrooms, classrooms with access to a
phone at a nearby room or
location.
Study I 4% 4%Study II 10% 12%
CThere is access to a phone at a
nearby location,
46%53%
DTeachers have no access to
phones from their classrooms or
at a nearby location.
46%25%
Central Office Network TechnologyA B I C
Office is on the KETS Wide Area Office is currently being Wired to I Office is not on the KETS Wide
Network. the KETS Wide Area Network, I Area Network
software is being installed.
Study I 29% 50% I 21%
Study II 63% 26% 1 11%
Central Office Networking SoftwareA B
Office personnel use Microsoft DAS software is installed,
Office & MUNIS (District personnel are in process of
Administrative Software DAS). being trained, some use is
evident.
Study I 29% 54%Study II 37% 44%
COffice does not have DAS
software.
17%19%
23
39
Discussion of KETS Resources
There were mixed results regarding the extent of implementation of KETSresources reported for both study samples. Whereas the subcomponents of CentralOffice Network Technology and Software met current expectations, this was not thecase for instruction-related services. About 60 percent of schools in both studysamples have limited or no access to school-wide electronic instructional materials,on-line search services, Internet and electronic catalogue and circulation of librarymaterials. Also, less than one in four teachers had a phone in the classroom or accessto a phone at a nearby room or location.
On the other hand, central office installation and use of the wide area networkand district administrative software (DAS) was very high. A strong majority (79%Study Sample I, 89% Study Sample II) reported the central office is on the KETSwide-area network or the office currently being wired and software installed.Training in the use of these systems is proceeding accordingly. Twenty-nine percentof Sample I and 37 percent of Sample H report the District Administrative Software(Microsoft Office and MUNIS) is currently in use. Nearly half of both study samplesreport the District Administrative Software is installed and personnel are beingtrained in its use.
Thus while the implementation of Central Office Networking appears to bemaking excellent progress, providing teachers simple tools of communication such asphones in the classroom and electronic instructional materials in the school mediacenter are clearly, lagging behind other implementation subcomponents.
TABLE 8Percent of Schools at Different Levels of Implementation for theSubcomponents of Support for KETS (including the community)
Study I N=24 Schools, Study II N=107 Schools
Group Support for KETS Implementation
AThere is broad documented There is documented support for
support for KETS from all KETS from a majority of
stakeholders. stakeholders.
Study I 12%Study II 30%
48%46%
There is documented support Documented support from
for KETS from some stakeholders is lacking.
stakeholders.
28% 12%20% 4%
School-Based Activities ThatSupport KETS
AThere is a broad array of There are a significant number
activities that build awareness of activities that build awareness
and support for KETS. and support for KETS.
Study I 8%Study II 13%
22%40%
There are some activities that There are very few activities that
build awareness and suppon for build awareness and support for
KETS. KETS.
54% 16%32% 15%
Discussion of Support for KETS (Including the Community)
While there was very adequate documented support for KETS in a majority ofschools (60% Study Sample I, 76% for Study Sample II), school-based and communityefforts to build awareness and support were found to be at an acceptable level in onlyone-third to one-half of schools. Data collected by the researchers/observers in bothstudy samples used checklists to note the types of evidence for school and commu-nity activities to build awareness and support for KETS. The most frequently re-ported support activity was the computer loan programs that give teachers additionaltechnology support and enable them to practice their technology skills or learn to usenew programs at home over the summer.
Community outreach efforts for KETS were sparse. Except for newsletters toinform parents and the public of technology projects and acquisitions and "openhouse" nights at school, activities to gain community support were very limited.Thus, while involved stakeholders, (e.g., school board and school council members)may be informed, activities to develop wider awareness and support for KETS in thecommunity at large is lacking.
25
4
Rater Reliability Between University Researchers and District TechnologyCoordinators
For 14 schools both the University Researchers (Study I) and the District Tech-nology Coordinators (Study II ) independently collected data and provided ratings onthe 20 subcomponents of the Education Technology Configuration Map. A percent ofthe agreement was computed for each item and for all items for different raters on thesame school. Percent agreement was calculated as the ratio of the number of matchesin ratings to the total possible x 100.
The proportion of exact agreements on ratings between University researchersand DTCs on all 20 subcomponents for the 14 schools to all possible ratings was 56percent. That is, both university and district rates agreed on a rating of "A", "B", "C",or "D" for the components of the same school 56 percent of the time. However if oneuses the categories of "acceptable practice" (rating A or B) and "need improvement"(rating C, D, or E) the proportion of matches between university and district rates toall possible ratings increased to 76 percent. Given the condition that this was the firsttime the configuration maps were used and training was not extensive, the reliabilitywas considered quite promising. With more training and experience the configurationmap does show promise for research as well as for self-report data under low-stakesconditions where consequences for performance are not involved.
26
4 ;2
Analysis of Subcomponents Related to High Implementation of TechnologyComponents
To identify which subcomponents of the Education Technology ComponentConfiguration Map are most critical to high implementation, a series of SpearmanRank-Order Correlation Coefficients were computed for both Study I and Study II.The higher the correlation coefficient, the more important the subcomponent as anindicator of high implementation. The lower the correlation coefficient, the less likelythe subcomponent is a predictor of high implementation. Table 9 presents the Spearmancorrelation coefficients of subcomponents of the technology instrument from Study I:External Evaluation. The results are reported in descending order to show which subcom-ponents were most strongly associated with high implementation.
TABLE 9Spearman Rank-Order Coefficients for Study I: External Evaluation
Technology Subcomponent Spearman Coefficient Probability
Scheduling of technology trair;ing options .728 .0001
Availability of software applications .718 .0001
Extent of technology-rich environment .700 .0001
Professional development options in technology .630 .0010
Extent to which technology is used in the instructional process .614 .0014
Professional development of the school technology coordinator .593 .0022
Development of school technology action plan .573 .0034
Involvement in decision making .561 .0043
Technology availability to individuals .495 .0092
Design of technology training .495 .0139
Consistency of available technology with the school technology action plan .445 .0292
Composition of the school technology committee .413 .0449
School-based activities in support of KETS .401 .0516
Library Media Center .358 .0851
If one considers those items in Table 9 with the highest Spearman Coefficient(i.e. .600 and above) it is evident that (a) how schools address professional develop-ment, (b) what school are doing to provide a "technology-rich" environment forstudents and teachers, and (c) the extent to which school are using technology forinstruction determine their overall progress toward fully benefiting from educationtechnology.
Table 10 presents the Spearman Correlation Coefficients of subcomponents ofthe technology instrument used in Study II: Self-Assessment. The results are reportedin descending order to show which subcomponents were most strongly associatedwith high implementation.
27
4 3
TABLE 10Spearman Rank-Order Coefficients for the Self-Assessment Sample
Technology Subcomponent Spearman Coefficient
Extent of technology-rich environment .752
Probability
Scheduling of technology training options .714 .0001
Available software applications of technology .709 .0001
School-based activities in support of KETS .706 .0001
Professional development options in technology .705 .0001
Extent to which technology applications are used in the instructional process .697 .0001
Involvement of the School Technology committee in decision making .641 .0001
Design of technology training options .598 .0001
Consistency of professional development plan/school tech plan .586 .0001
Professional development of the school tech coordinator .585 .0001
Development of school technology action plan .545 .0001
Group support for KETS in the community .530 .0001
Library Media Center .503 .0001
Consistency of available technology with the school technology plan .499 .0001
Composition of the school technology committee .480 .0001
Technology availability to individuals .479 .0001
Phones in classrooms .386 .0001
Central Office Technology DAS .237 .0137
Central Office Technology KETS (WAN) .101 .2971
Based on the data in Table 10, Study II confirms that subcomponentsrelated to professional development, providing a technology-rich environment,and the use of technology for instruction are critical factors for high implemen-tation. If one again considers all items with a Spearman Coefficient of .600 andabove, five subcomponents are identical for Study I and Study II. These are:
Extent of a technology-rich environmentScheduling of technology training optionsAvailability of software applicationsProfessional development optionsExtent to which technology applications are used in the instructional process
Data from both the Study I and Study II samples suggest that implemen-tation is related to factors that affect the individual teacher and the classroomenvironment rather than factors that relate to the administrative aspects ofimplementation such as consistency of technology with the technology plan orthe composition of the school technology committee. For example, a technol-ogy-rich environment and flexible scheduling of training options directly affectclassroom structures. The components least associated with higher implemen-tation are those which are associated with school structures such as the compo-
28
4 4
sition of the school technology committee and central office technology. Inter-estingly, the components with higher Spearman Correlation Coefficients arethose in which individual schools have more direct input into the decision-making process (such as scheduling professional development). For instance,principals interviewed for this research noted that there is some difficultyplanning for the KETS match. Other principals were concerned about meetingthe costs of implementing KETS.
A notable difference between the two samples is that in Study I: ExternalEvaluation schools the school-based activities in support of KETS appears to be lessof an indicator of high implementation than in the Study H: Self-Assessment schools.
Comparison of High and Low Implementors For the Two Study Samples
The patterns of implementation for the highest-scoring group of schools inboth samples were compared with those of the lowest-scoring group of schools. Thiscomparison was accomplished using data from a cluster analysis that showed pat-terns within the entire set of Configuration Map scores. The clustering processyielded distinct groups of schools whose scores differed from each other. Thesegroups were labeled high, medium, and low implementors of the KETS initiative.Two groups were of special interest: the highest scoring schools (Study I N= 8;Study II N=37) and the lowest-scoring schools (Study I N=8, Study II N=37).
Differences in implementation patterns are very obvious when one comparesthe collective patterns for high-implementing and low-implementing schools onspecific subcomponents. To illustrate this Figure 3 shows the implementation patternsof the 8 high-implementing schools in Study I and the 8 low-implementing schoolsfor the subcomponent, "Technology Support for KERA Initiatives." The highimplementors show very few unacceptable practices and a high proportion of recom-mended best practices. On the other hand, the low implementors show a substantialnumber of unacceptable practices and few recommended best practices. These dataclearly indicate where growth is needed for the low implementors.
A second example is presented in Figure 4 which shows the implementationpatterns for high implementing and low implementing schools in Study II for thesubcomponent, "Professional Development of School Staff." Again, the differences areclearly showing what patterns need to be eliminated and which need to be embracedfor low-implementing schools. Graphical comparisons of high and low implementorsfor other subcomponents for both Study I and Study II are presented in Appendix D.
29
E
FigurrCimparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataKETS Resources
100%90 %80 %70 %60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10%
%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
100%90 %80 %70 %60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10 %
0 %A B C
Recommended Acceptable Less ThanBest Practices Acceptable
Practices Practices
UnacceptablePractices
Technology 0 Consistency of Available SoftwareAvailability to Technology w/Plan ApplicationsIndividuals
30
G
I0"I
0J
Figure 4Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataProfessional Development of School Staff
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
100%90%80%70%60%50%
-
----
-40%
30%20 %
0% Liii
A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
Consistency El Professional 111 Scheduling of 111 Design of
among Development Training Technology
Technology Options in Options TrainingPlan and Other Technology
Plans
31
4 Y
Results of the Interviews From Sample I: External Evaluation Only
Interviews with principals were conducted to provide additional importantinformation regarding implementation that can not be considered as a variation inpractice, but might nonetheless affect implementation. For example, did principalsview technology in a supportive role vis-a-vis implementation of professional devel-opment or other KERA initiatives? Do teachers report changes in their instructionalpractices as a result of technology? These data may provide insights into implementa-tion and suggest other areas that need to be examined.
Four of the 20 principals noted that their schools received rewards and theybelieved technology affected those results positively, especially in the area of finalproducts for portfolios. Seven stated their schools were at or slightly below thresholdand believed that students who use computers develop more serious attitudes abouttheir portfolio products and that teachers are challenged to use newer tools and pro-grams to enhance instruction. There appeared to be no patterns of technology sup-porting team teaching based on principals' answers to questions relating to this areaof instruction.
All but two principals stated their schools were on schedule and diffusionwas proceeding according to their technology plans. The two others commentedabout the extensive difficulties of networking their old school buildings. One said,"Between trying to figure out how to do it, and then when we do, figuring out howto pay for such a massive undertaking it is discouraging.... We are really strugglingwith wiring."
Two principals said they were not computer literate and did not use comput-ers. Two others said they were novices but "much better than last year." The remain-der are regular computer users, and noted several ways technology supports them intheir work.
Teachers were asked if their instructional practices had changed as a result oftechnology. Four teachers reported no change or little change in practice. Twentyteachers responded in ways that indicated technology was changing their roles in theclassroom. One teacher, whose comment was typical of this group said, "I'm less of alecturer and more of a facilitator." Technology was increasing instructional resourcesfor use by them or their students for 15 teachers in this group. Eleven teachers de-scribed the benefits of technology to increase efficiency in record keeping, gradingand other management tasks. Six of these teachers alluded to the responsibility theyfelt to prepare students for a technological world, even if, as one respondent com-plained, "...it drives me crazy in the process!"
Also we asked teachers if training and professional development was adequateto address their classroom needs. The sample was split. Twenty-six reported it wassatisfactory and that they were using technology skills learned in their teaching.Twenty-four described difficulties with professional development.
32
S.
Time to practice with computers, difficulty implementing the skill using theirown classroom equipment which was different than equipment actually used intrainings, and lack of personal self-confidence were the most critical problems identi-fied. Six teachers interviewed were particularly disgruntled about training. One saidit was "useless;" another was frustrated because the software and hardware she hadreceived training on were not available to her in her school; and, another was frus-trated because she had no time to practice the skills she had learned. She could notbecome competent enough to use these in her teaching, even though she was willingto do so. Four out of six reported that technology had little or no effect on theirpractice.
CONCLUSIONS FOR STUDY I: EXTERNAL EVALUATION
1. Schools across Kentucky have shown significant progress in building the capacityto make technology and technology networks available to students, teachers andadministrators. All Districts are connected to the KETS network.
2. Statewide, schools have made the most progress in implementing aspects of KETSrelated to school structures of planning and organization:
implementing technology that is consistent with the school's technologyplan,implementing technology planning committees that represent allstakeholders,developing plans for technology and professional development that areconsistent with the school's Transformation Plan
3. There were wide variations in the extent of implementation of the 20 identifiedsubcomponents of education technology and KETS among the 24 schools studied.These differences were most evident in the use of technology applications and optionsavailable for professional development.
4. While there has been an increase in the applications of technology for instruction,a significant effort for development and training will be needed for technology toreach its full potential as a tool for teaching and learning. Word processing receivedconsiderable use in the study schools. Spreadsheets and databases are beginning to bea part of regular instruction and telecommunications was rarely observed being usedfor instruction or communication.
5. Basic classroom connectivity is deficient. Phones in classrooms or connections toInternet services are lacking in most schools.
33
4
6 Factors that differentiated schools that were high implementors of educationtechnology from low implementors were related directly to classroom instruction andprofessional development:
a) The flexible scheduling of training options.b) The availability of software applications to individuals.c) The extent to which there was a technology-rich environment.d) Professional development options in technology.e) The extent to which technology is used in the instructional process.
About one-half (49%) of schools identified as high implementors providedflexible scheduling of training options such as flexible professional development.
Almost two-thirds (60%) of high implementors provide a wide range of softwareto students and teachers for use in teaching and management activities.
About three-quarters (72%) of high implementors provide a technology-richenvironment where students have flexible access to technology and cooperate oncomputing tasks ranging from technical assistance to learning activities.
Over half of high implementors (53%) provide a range of professional develop-ment options in technology including but not limited to coaching, mentoring,specialized workshops, and individual tutorials that are provided throughoutthe year.
Approximately one-third (33%) of high implementors report that technology isused as an integral part of the instructional process. Primarily classroom use islimited to word processing programs and, to a lesser extent, speadsheets and da-tabases.
High implementation appears to be related to components of KETS that focus onclassroom instruction and professional development of classroom teachers. Compo-nents that relate to school structures such as the development of a technology plan orthe composition of the school technology committee seem less important as indicatorsof high implementation.
7 . While professional development was found to be associated with high implemen-tation of education technology, only one-quarter (25%) of schools in the sample areproviding a rich array of professional development options and only one-thirdoverall (30%) provide ongoing, flexible professional development suited toindividual needs.
8. Principals are generally positive about the potential of technology and committedto providing students with technology. However, many are frustrated and apprehen-sive regarding the time needed to develop technological expertise and how to obtainthe needed matching dollars to be eligible for KETS funds. Teachers also were posi-
34
5 C
tive about the possible applications of technology to instruction and believed it wasessential that students have access to technology to prepare them for an increasinglytechnological workplace. Like the principals, teachers were frustrated with the lack oftime to learn to use computers. Teachers who used technology more extensivelyreported changes in their teaching practices that provided more support of activestudent learning and less direct teaching methods such as lecturing.
9. The Innovation Component Map for Education Technology proved to be a usefulinstrument for gathering data on the variations of practice that exist in Kentuckyschools related to the implementation of Education Technology. The reliability datacomparing the ratings of external researchers and district technology coordinatorswere encouraging for the first-time use of a qualitative instrument. Feedback fromresearchers provided useful data to revise and improve the Configuration Map forEducation Technology.
CONCLUSIONS FOR STUDY II: SELF ASSESSMENT
1. The results of Study II confirm that statewide schools have made significantprogress in making technology hardware and software available to students, teachers,and administrators. In addition, all Districts have connected to the KETS networkwhich supports the capacity to network among schools in the district and to connectto state and national networks.
2.. As in Study I, the 107 schools in Study II show the most progress in implementingcomponents of education technology that relate directly to school structures of plan-ning and organization:
implementing technology that is consistent with the school'stechnology plan,implementing technology planning committees that represent allstakeholders, anddeveloping plans for technology and professional development thatare consistent with the school's Transformation plans.
The internal evaluators (DTCs) of Study II judged their technology somewhat lessconsistent with school plans than the external evaluators judged the technology ofschools in their study. The Study II schools were more effective than Study I schoolsat informing the public about KETS activities. Over half the schools in the samplereported a significant number of public information activities.
3. The results of data collected by local technology coordinators on schools in theirdistricts showed a wide variation in practice across schools on the 20 subcomponentsaddressed the Configuration Map for Education Technology As in Study I, thedifferences in patterns of implementation were most pronounced in the use of tech-
35
51
nology applications and options available for the professional development of teach-ers and administrators.
4. The availability of applications of technology for instruction were rated somewhathigher for schools in Study LI than for Study I. However, based on the data, schools inStudy II also will require much more training and professional development to reachtheir full potential in providing technology as a tool for instruction. As in Study I,Word Processing software is used extensively for writing and portfolio development.Databases and spreadsheets are beginning to be incorporated into instructions, withtelecommunications at the awareness and exploratory stage.
5. Basic classroom connectivity in Study II schools was deficient; however, the DTCobservers in Study II reported somewhat more access to phones than Study I schools.Overall, phones in classrooms or connections to Internet services are lacking in overthree-quarters of Study II schools.
6. Several factors were associated with high implementation of education technology:a) the technology available to individuals,b) the consistency of the available technology to the school technology plan,c) the availability of software applications,d) the extent to which there was a technology-rich environment, ande) the extent to which technology is used in the instructional process.
Just under one-half (45%) of schools identified as high implementors provideda wide range of technology available to individual teachers and students forlearning and management activities.
Almost three-quarters (72%) of high implementors report a high consistency ofavailable technology with the school's technology plan, indicating that in thisgroup of schools technology is not only present, but used in implementing otherareas of KETS as well.
About two-thirds (59%) of high implementors provide a wide array of softwareapplications for use in teaching, learning and management.
Just under three quarters (72%) of high implementors report that they provide atechnology-rich enviromnent in which students have flexible access to computersand assist each other in a variety of cooperative tasks.
Just over one-third (37%) of high implementors report that technology is used asan integral part of the instructional process. Primarily classroom use is limited toword processing programs and, to a lesser extent, speadsheets and databases.
High implementation in the Study II sample seems to be highly correlated to compo-nents of KETS that focus on classroom instructions and individual teachers. Compo-nents that relate to school structures such as the composition of the school technology
36
committee seem less important indicators of high implementation. Based on thesimilar data from both Study I and Study II regarding indicators of high implementa-tion it appears that components that focus on school structures are necessary but notsufficient factors for high implementation of education technology.
7 . While professional development options for teachers was one of the critical factorsrelated to high implementation of education technology, only 26 percent of schoolswere judged to have a rich array of options available to school personnel and parentsand 41 percent of schools were judged to have professional development programsthat were "less than acceptable" as defined by the Configuration Map. Also, half (49%)of Study II schools reported technology training independent of and not integratedwith other professional development related to instruction.
8. The ICC Map was a useful tool for these data collectors to assess the status ofimplementation in their districts. The district technology coordinators generally ratedschools slightly below the ratings of the university observers, demonstrating thatDTCs can be critical in self-reports about the conditions that exist in their schoolsunder conditions that are nonthreatening and not used for public evaluation.
9. The use of Kentucky's two-way video teleconferencing network was an efficientand cost-effective method of training data collectors. In the relatively short 1/2 daytraining, the DTCs were able to report findings that correlated 76 percent of the timewith professional researchers. The cost-benefit analysis is very favorable. Rather thanpaying upwards of $2,000.00 for travel and expenses, the video sites were availablefor less than $30/hour ($180.00).
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Kentucky Department of Education should identify schools that are highimplementors and demonstrate exemplary practices in specific components of Educa-tion Technology. Strategies should be developed to disseminate successful approachesof implementation and utilize the expertise in high-implementing school to providetechnical assistance to schools needing help.
2. All schools should conduct a self-assessment using the Configuration Map forEducation Technology, or similar diagnostic instrument, to determine relativelystrong components of Education Technology and specific components most needingattention. The Kentucky Department of Education should provide training in the useof the Configuration Map to all District Technology Coordinators.
3. Schools should focus more development and training efforts on broad applica-tions of technology for instruction, specifically in the use of databases and telecom-munications.
37
t.;
4. Schools should design professional development in Education Technology thatprovides more of a variety of options for staff throughout the year and that is inte-grated (a part of and not separate from) with other professional development effortsto improve instruction. Also, schools should make more use of networks to deliveron-line instruction and to promote information sharing among individuals.
5. The Kentucky Department of Education should identify and target schools thatare low implementors for the purpose of providing assistance to upgrade resourcesand supporting equity in educational opportunities.
6. All schools should make networking within their schools and with other schools- a high priority The Kentucky Department of Education should make available toschools assistance in networking through the Regional Service Centers and throughidentified schools highly involved in networking.
7. School principals should involve School Technology Coordinators more directly aspart of the school's instructional planning team for the purpose of using technologyfor instruction.
8. All schools need to develop and maintain more effective public information andoutreach strategies to support the Kentucky Education Technology System (KETS).
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
These first implementation studies focused on the extent of implementation ofEducational Technology in schools across the state. A continued effort of assessingextent of implementation using a common reporting instrument such as the Configu-ration Map is needed statewide. Under conditions of "low stakes" that are nonthreat-ening to local school, self-assessment by trained observers should be able to providethese data. This information statewide on an annual basis is needed to evaluate andmonitor progress of education technology in schools across the state.
Beyond studies that focus on what is happening school-wide, studies thatfocus on the use of technologies in individual classrooms and patterns of use oftechnology for instruction by individual teachers are needed. For example, what arethe variations in use of technology:
in different subject areas (i.e., math, science, social studies, writing,the arts),across school levels (i.e., K-3, grades 4&5, grades 6-8, grades 9-12),at different size schools,for assessing students' learning and teporting progress?
38
Schools that are high implementors of education technology compared to lowimplementors should be studied to identify strategies that are most and least success-ful. Factors such as leadership, professional development, focus on instruction, sup-port systems, and community involvement need to be examined.
Studies need to be conducted to determine the effects of technology on studentlearning and school management. Now that the Configuration Map has been pilottested and a common measurement for implementation is available, the relationshipof implementation to student learning or other school goals needs to be researched.Important to this cause-effect research will be the study of the effects of differentlevels of use of technology in schools while other contextual factors are the same oraccounted for.
The origin of KERA was energized by the need to bring equality to schoolsacross the Commonwealth. Studies are needed to determine how education technol-ogy has effected learning opportunities for students to increase the equity across allschools in Kentucky.
39
REFERENCES
Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York:State University of New York Press.
The KETS Architectural Standards and Technical Specifications. (1992). Frankfort, KY:Kentucky Department of Education.
The KETS Blueprint and Selection Guide. (1992). Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Depart-ment of Education.
The KETS Building Wiring Standard. (1992). Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Departmentof Education.
The KETS Implementation Plan. (1992). Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department ofEducation.
40
5i;
APPENDICES
41
APPENDIX A
An Innovation Component Configuration Mapfor Educational Technology
42
AN
INN
OV
AT
ION
CO
MP
ON
EN
TC
ON
FIG
UR
AT
ION
MA
PF
OR
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
TE
CH
NO
LOG
Y
Sch
ook_
Obs
erve
r.D
ate:
Num
ber
of a
ctiv
e cl
assr
oom
s:N
umbe
r of
stu
dent
s:N
umbe
r of
teac
hers
:
Ple
ase
note
:
Thi
s do
cum
ent w
as d
evel
oped
by
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hfo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
stu
dyin
g th
e im
plem
anla
tion
of E
duca
tiona
l Tec
hnol
ogy
and
Is n
otto
be
used
as
an e
valu
atio
n In
stru
men
t. W
hile
It w
as d
esig
ned
as a
res
earc
h to
ol, t
his
docu
men
t can
be
used
for
plan
ning
and
sel
f-as
sess
men
t of l
ocal
patte
rns
of im
plem
enta
tion.
Thi
s do
cum
ent,
know
n as
a C
ompo
nent
Con
figur
atio
n M
ap, i
dent
ifies
key
com
pone
nts
of E
duca
tiona
l Tec
hnol
ogy
and
desc
ribes
varia
tions
In p
ract
ice
one
wou
ld e
xpec
t to
find
acro
ss th
e st
ate.
The
var
iatio
ns fa
rthe
st to
the
left
are
cons
ider
ed b
y K
entu
cky
prac
titio
ners
, res
earc
hers
,an
d de
velo
pers
to b
e th
e em
ergi
ng p
ract
ice
advo
cate
d In
the
KE
RA
initi
ativ
e. D
eter
min
ing
whi
ch Is
the
mos
t effe
ctiv
e or
effi
cien
t var
iatio
n of
pra
ctic
ew
ill b
e th
e ch
alle
nge
of o
ngoi
ng r
esea
rch.
The
dev
elop
ers
of th
is in
nova
tion
Com
pone
ntC
onfig
urat
ion
Map
are
per
iodi
cally
rev
iew
ing
and
revi
sing
this
inst
rum
ent t
o im
prov
e its
usef
ulne
ss a
nd a
bilit
y to
iden
tify
Impo
rtan
tva
riatio
ns in
pra
ctic
e. P
leas
e se
nd a
llco
mm
ents
and
sug
gest
ion
to R
oger
Pan
krat
z,E
xecu
tive
Dire
ctor
, Ken
tuck
y in
stitu
te fo
r Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch,
146
Con
sum
er L
ane,
Fra
nkfo
rt,
Ken
tuck
y 40
601.
Fax
502
-227
-697
6.
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AII
AB
LE
,
Tab
le o
f C
onte
nts
A. T
echn
olog
y Su
ppor
t for
KE
RA
Inf
est/r
oe1
I. T
edin
ogy
avai
labi
lity
to M
dIvI
dual
32.
Con
sist
ency
with
Sch
ool P
ion
43.
App
licat
ion
of te
chno
logy
4
a.T
ochn
olog
y U
sed
in th
e in
stru
ctio
nel P
roat
is7
1. T
he L
oom
ing
Ent
iron
men
t2.
Ext
ont o
f te
chno
logy
app
licat
ion
in th
e In
stru
ctio
nal p
roce
ss
C. P
rofe
ssio
nal D
evel
opm
ent o
f Sc
hool
Sta
ll
1. C
onsi
sten
cy a
mon
g th
e Pr
ofes
sion
al D
evel
opm
ent P
lan,
the
Tec
hnol
ogy
Plan
and
the
Scho
ol T
rans
form
atio
n Pl
an2.
Pro
Nss
iond
dev
elop
men
t opt
ions
ki t
echn
olog
y3.
Sch
edul
ing
of te
chno
logy
trai
ning
opt
ion
104.
Des
ign
of te
chno
logy
trai
ning
.11
D. S
choo
l Tec
hnol
ogy
Com
mitt
ee: F
unct
ion
and
Proc
esse
s11
1. C
ompo
sitio
n of
sch
ool t
echn
olog
y co
mm
ittee
112.
Dev
elop
men
t of
ths
Scho
ol T
echn
olog
y A
ctio
n Pl
an11
3. T
he b
lvol
vem
ent i
n de
cisi
on m
aidn
g12
4. P
role
ulon
ol d
evol
opm
ent o
f M
e sc
hool
tsch
nolo
gy c
oord
inat
or12
L C
ompe
nsat
ion
for
the
scho
ol te
chno
logy
coo
rdin
ator
12S.
Add
ition
al o
ppor
tuni
ties
foe
ths
scho
d te
chno
logy
coo
rdin
ator
12
E. K
entu
cky
Edu
catio
n T
echn
olog
y Sy
stem
(K
ET
S) R
OSO
UrC
is13
1. T
he li
brar
y m
edla
con
*13
2. P
hone
s In
cla
ssro
oms
133.
Clif
litel
off
ice
14F.
Sup
port
lot K
ET
S14
1. G
roup
sup
port
for
KE
TS
impl
emen
tatio
n14
2. S
choo
l-ba
sed
activ
ities
that
sup
port
KE
TS
IS
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
00 N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
2
Tec
lyol
ogy
Sup
poet
kw
KE
RA
MM
usC
ircle
the
stat
emen
t Mal
mos
t acc
urst
* up
ries.
1. Is
hool
ogan
llthi
lital
s (a
vsis
bild
Y. v
idel
Y)
(4)
A w
ids
varie
ty o
f tec
hnol
ogie
s is
thef
t* lo
tte
amin
g, m
anag
emen
t, an
d co
mm
unic
atio
n.T
edvo
logi
es a
re a
valle
ble
I sal
sa q
ualit
y b
prom
ote
wid
e:m
ad u
se a
nd in
duie
per
sona
lco
nvul
ses,
tele
phon
e, V
.C.R
., co
mco
nls.
vid
eodi
ec. C
D-R
OM
and
Won
neec
e no
liset
acc
ess.
(b)
A s
elec
eke
of te
chno
bgie
s ic
use
able
for
hom
ing,
men
agem
ent,
and
com
mun
icat
ion,
but
the
Wec
tion
* lim
ited
by s
aw a
cces
s fo
the
toch
nobg
y or
the
num
ber
mal
abie
. Tec
hnol
ogie
s
avai
lebi
e W
u* p
omm
el c
ompu
ters
, tel
epho
ne,
V.C
.R.,
cam
cord
er, C
D-R
OM
and
War
saw
'shu
t acc
ess.
Pla
ce a
num
ber
in th
e sp
ace
b in
dica
te th
e ex
tent
of a
vala
beity
for
diffe
ent g
roup
s. U
se th
e ke
y lo
the
right
.
tncf
rebu
als
with
Dis
abio
ies
Lear
ners
Tea
ches
_Prin
cipa
lsC
ouns
ebre
_Mal
y m
edia
spe
ciat
ists
_Par
ents
se-
4 co
mm
une)
,S
uppo
rt s
taff
Oth
er (
Mas
s de
scrib
e)
(c)
A k
need
num
ber
of te
chno
logi
es a
re a
vala
ble
foe
team
ing,
man
agem
ent,
end
com
mun
ical
ice.
Acm
es is
Met
a (e
.g. p
hone
s m
eld*
onl
y 11
teac
hees
bun
g')
and
eklu
des
low
tech
nolo
gybl
uein
g on
ti, o
ne o
t tw
o of
the
blow
ing:
pers
onal
com
pute
rs, V
CR
s, c
amco
rder
s, s
nake
inke
nalio
n M
uck
mes
s.
DR
AF
T 0
4117
195
Few
or
no te
chno
logy
is &
nim
ble
lot l
oom
ing,
mon
ogam
y!, a
nd c
onvo
rbilk
e. T
hen
are
no(o
r on
ly a
lew
)Obr
ies
In M
aroo
n, n
o (o
t onk
afe
w)
prun
e m
imes
es, c
once
ders
, VC
Rs,
et.
Avi
lalk
y4-
Dal
y an
d be
Ext
ende
d U
se B
eyon
d S
chad
Day
3- D
ely
2- M
iddy
1- O
ccas
iona
lly0-
Nol
rab
ble
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R3
2. c
ions
isla
ural
thia
blej
ahno
ktgu
aLSt
hoga
mbn
ftlo
giB
an."
'. C
ircl
e th
est
atem
ent t
hat M
OSi
acc
urat
ely
appl
ies.
(a)
The
tech
nobg
y pr
esen
t in
the
scho
ol f
uly
Whe
ts11
4 di
ffus
ion
of te
chno
logy
aid
out
kt I
he s
thoo
tsas
lant
tech
nolo
gy M
en. F
oe s
ank
anim
as a
re s
alab
le o
nly
In la
bs, d
ews
asm
aid
the
abso
l lec
hnob
gy c
omm
ittee
s M
a to
spen
d K
ET
S m
oney
co
cond
o la
bs I
tat,
ben
on d
assm
an c
once
als
it su
bseq
uent
yea
s?
If m
ore
deta
iled
Won
san
is n
eede
d.te
chno
logy
inw
nkel
es a
re a
vast
* in
be
dist
rict
tech
nolo
gy m
uter
pla
nt
(b)
The
tech
nolo
gy p
rese
nt in
the
scho
ol p
artia
llyre
acts
the
Ani
on o
f te
chno
logy
laid
out
ki t
hesc
loci
s cu
rren
t tec
hnol
ogy
plan
. For
exa
mpl
e, it
Is
evid
ent k
om o
bser
vatio
n th
at th
e pi
on is
bei
ngM
owed
, but
luN
Im
ptem
enta
lko
has
not y
et b
een
mal
ted.
(c)
The
tech
nolo
gy p
rese
nt I
i the
sch
col t
uns
coas
tlo
the
Mir
ka o
f %
theo
logy
Mid
out
in th
ew
horl
s m
ood
tedm
olog
y pi
a. F
or a
mpl
e,la
bs w
an p
lum
ed a
s as
kal
i cal
culu
skn
plem
enta
don
and
coky
r &
swam
cal
cula
te)
are
Wan
e
3.. k
aalia
..Sol
ktar
a.A
gglic
jam
it je
dute
gy {
vari
ety
of a
pplic
atio
n, s
ant o
f us
e). C
ircl
e th
est
atem
ent t
hat m
ost a
ccur
atel
y ap
plie
s.
tal
The
re is
a b
road
arr
ay o
f so
ftw
are
appl
icat
ions
(mor
e lh
an 1
0) I
n us
e lo
t Ina
uctb
n, in
form
atim
netw
oddn
g, m
arch
man
agem
ent e
nd p
anni
ng..
scho
ci p
rola
sian
als,
*de
nts
and
pare
nts
we
bask
pro
ckka
ily p
rkka
gis,
CD
-RO
Mre
fere
nce
man
ia, o
ral a
nd H
ypet
Cat
d or
inkw
ay.
(h)
The
re is
a v
arie
ty o
f so
ftw
are
apol
ocat
ions
(5-
10)
inus
e in
the
scho
ol f
or in
stru
ctio
n, m
anag
emen
t and
into
natio
n ne
twor
kkg.
The
mak
dly
(mor
e he
n2/
3) o
f w
hoa
aote
ssio
nals
end
Wan
ts u
sepr
oduc
ally
pac
kage
s, C
D-R
OM
tole
ranc
em
ater
ials
, e-m
ai, g
radi
ng p
acka
ges,
and
Hyp
erC
ard
a M
any.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
aky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WiT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
(a)
The
re a
m s
ever
al a
pplic
elic
as (
3-5)
of
lech
nobg
ykt
use
kr
insk
uctio
n an
d m
amm
al. S
cow
teac
hers
and
stu
dent
s13
). u
se b
asic
;nab
:ally
pac
kege
s,A
nna
met
ed*,
e-m
all,
grad
ing
pack
ega,
and
Hyp
erC
ard
a H
omy.
DR
AF
T 0
4117
195
(d)
The
tech
nolo
gy p
rese
nt I
n Ih
e *s
hod
indi
cate
d th
eci
flus
in o
f te
dinc
iogy
hid
out
In
the
schc
oaam
id le
chno
bgy
plot
hes
nol
beg
un I
n an
y w
ay.
(d)
The
re M
e a
knea
d m
oos
CI
appr
oatio
n (0
-2)
ofle
dmok
tgy
h se
e In
as
edio
cib
kisk
alic
o,m
arch
men
agam
ent e
tcos
enim
loat
bi. O
nty.
afe
w (
1/3
or W
O W
as a
nd ta
ds*
ues
bask
prod
s:44
y pa
t**
CD
-RC
M m
anna
mat
ed*
omit
foal
poo
ps, a
ndH
yper
Car
d a
holy
. For
Ns
eshO
xy. M
uss
riol
al c
ikun
ianc
os s
uch
as li
ck o
f M
e ko
laa
ewer
Ind
lidlo
n ls
sPy
resp
ond*
im I
delo
w m
isty
and
Wer
e cA
use
.
Plac
a a
nixn
bet i
n th
e sp
ace
to in
dica
te th
e ex
tent
of
use
of e
ach
appl
icat
ion
for
insI
nctio
n or
man
agem
ent b
y te
ache
rs.
bila
ti.11
111.
4- D
eity
and
Ext
ende
d U
se B
eyon
d th
e Sc
hool
Day
. Use
the k
ey to
the
ii01.
3- D
aily
2- W
es*
1- O
ccas
iona
lly0-
Not
Use
d
(11)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(I)
Cur
ricu
ltm &
Perf
orm
ancs
Prol
essi
coal
Scho
ol-B
asad
blen
ded
Scho
olFu
nk R
esou
rce/
Inst
ruct
ion
Ass
essm
ent
Dev
elop
men
tD
ecis
kin
Milk
ing
Serv
ices
You
th S
ervi
ce C
ante
rs
Ele
ctro
nic
thst
ruct
iona
l mat
eria
ls
Port
folio
dev
e4.1
aent
sto
tage
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ion
Mul
timed
ia p
rodu
ctro
n
Oat
s an
alys
is a
nd d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
Sche
duin
g
Inst
ruct
iona
l pla
nnin
g an
d m
anag
emen
1
Rco
rd k
eept
hg
Oth
er te
chno
logy
app
licat
ions
:Pl
athe
*sa
te
DR
AF
T 0
4117
195
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
tch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
IIOD
UC
E O
R D
IS1R
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R5
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
Pla
ce a
num
ber
in ti
e*a
ce b
indi
cate
Ile
exte
nt o
f use
of e
ach
appl
katio
nlo
t ins
truc
tion
or m
enag
emen
t by
quie
nte.
4- th
ay
end
for
blen
ded
Use
Bey
ond
the
Sch
ool D
ay. U
se ti
le k
ey b
the
rift
3- D
aly
2 W
eedy
- O
ccas
iona
lly
0- N
ot U
sed
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
()(0
Cur
ricul
um I
Per
form
ance
Pro
fess
iona
lS
choo
l-Bas
edE
xten
ded
Sch
ool
Fam
iy R
esou
rce
beau
:Ion
Ass
essm
ent
Dev
elop
men
tD
ecis
ion
Mai
dng
Sam
baY
outi
Son
ia C
ente
rsE
lect
roni
c in
sti °
Alo
ne W
eide
Por
tfolio
dev
elop
men
t sto
rage
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ion
Mul
timed
ia p
rodu
ctio
n
Dat
a an
alys
is a
nd d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
Sch
edul
ing
Inst
ruct
iona
l pla
nnbg
and
man
agem
ent
Rec
ord
keep
ing
Oth
er te
chno
logy
**A
tkin
s:P
lena
des
crib
e
'Ple
ase
note
any
of t
hese
use
s by
pare
nts
or s
uppo
rt s
taff
In L
e sp
ace
bebw
(F
orex
ampl
e, p
aren
ts u
se d
atab
ases
kx
scho
ol-b
ased
cou
ncil
wor
k)
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
tor
Edu
catio
nR
esee
tch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R6
8. T
echn
olog
y U
sed
in th
s In
stil/
et I
ona
Proc
ess
Cir
cle
be s
tate
men
t NW
mod
acc
urst
* ap
ples
.
I. E
ileal
lishi
ckib
intiu
lach
ailo
ciat
aibt
anin
ibbi
nuna
olla
tuab
lOY
. &de
ntgo
dmob
al
(a)
(b)
Com
pute
ss a
nd o
ber
appr
oabl
e te
chno
logy
are
load
ed in
are
as M
ai e
nabi
e al
l stu
dent
s b
have
WI*
acm
es d
urin
g 'n
otat
iona
l abi
des
kicl
udes
clu
e va
t tha
t may
he
°cou
rtin
g in
bbs
).St
uden
t: or
gro
ups
of s
tude
nts
can
wor
k in
ampu
les
emu
Mile
obe
r ty
pes
of I
nsku
ctio
nal
activ
ate
occa
. Stu
dent
s he
lp s
ad' o
ber.
Gam
ut*
and
othe
r sp
aopd
ate
leth
noio
gy a
relo
cate
d in
are
as th
at e
nabl
e m
any
(mom
than
213
)st
uden
ts to
hav
e N
oble
acc
ess
dusb
gin
elno
tbna
l act
iviti
es (
this
Mud
ge d
ist w
ork
bat
may
be
=un
to in
labs
). N
stu
dent
s os
rum
of
stud
ents
wos
k to
geth
er I
n co
mpu
ter
area
s th
em le
som
e di
srup
tion
of a
bet P
ipes
ol h
am:k
cal
activ
ities
. Stu
dent
s m
ostly
hel
p ea
ch o
tos
with
som
e N
ethe
r as
sist
ance
.
(c)
Con
vuls
es a
nd a
lms
spaw
n* I
schm
aailY
am
loca
ted
h ar
eas
that
ent
ie o
nly
sane
(tm
to 1
13)
stud
imb
b ha
ve I
leic
bie
acce
ss d
usbg
insi
ntio
nal a
ctiv
ities
(W
e In
clud
es c
lass
wor
k th
atm
ay b
e oo
curr
bg I
n bb
e). S
tude
nts
of g
nxip
s of
stud
snts
an
woc
k in
cam
as(
area
s bu
t thi
sgr
eatly
dim
ple
othe
r ty
pes
of I
nstr
uctio
nal
abid
es. T
eeth
es p
enal
ly h
elps
stu
dent
s on
be
com
pute
rs.
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
(d)
Cav
iare
and
obe
r ep
prop
rial
e Is
chno
bgy
are
ethe
r no
t wal
e* a
al o
r ar
e ba
led
in a
n au
bet d
oes
not a
mbl
e sk
ids*
I. h
ave
SW*
scow
dur
ing
beln
icio
nal a
tlas.
Fa
soin
ple.
be d
emea
n ha
s on
k on
e =
mut
er lo
cate
d In
the
bred
the
mom
al t
he I
ndie
s% d
esk
a th
est
uden
t car
cass
(*)
is lo
cate
d In
the
thre
w o
f be
mom
and
usi
ng it
nig
ht d
impt
olh
a ac
tivili
se&
Wen
s of
rum
of
stud
ents
am
not
svo
skco
mas
: are
e w
iale
obs
r In
stru
dlon
al a
llIes
are
accu
sing
. No
heb
Is g
hat I
a s
kxle
ntus
ing
the
com
pute
r.
2.E
ilAni
sdie
dtha
legu
atia
boak
imita
tado
nath
eact
ubld
etr
of IP
Plic
atio
ntal
tegr
atio
n in
b °M
obil
hsfr
uctim
l
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(5)
A v
arie
ty o
f te
chno
logy
app
licat
ions
Seve
ral t
echn
olog
y ap
plic
atio
ns a
reO
ne o
r tw
o Is
chno
bgy
appl
icat
ions
One
or
Iwo
tech
nobg
y *p
roto
nsT
echn
obgy
app
licab
le W
O s
eldo
mSr
i flI
glU
fty
ltied
U o
ngoi
ngre
gula
rly
used
as
ong3
bg e
lem
ents
ot
are
regi
aarl
y us
ed lo
°m
ost a
ndar
e m
inio
n* u
sed
b su
ppor
t end
used
b im
port
bet
udio
n.el
emen
ts b
the
inst
ruct
iona
l pro
cess
.lii
inst
ruct
bnal
pro
cess
.en
hanc
e ba
lm:to
n.en
hanc
e ks
sinx
lion.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Pla
ce a
num
ber
i the
spe
cs to
indi
cate
the
exte
nt to
whi
chE
AL1
0121
.1/3
4ea
ch te
chno
bgy
appk
atio
n 4
used
in d
ay lo
day
inst
ruct
iona
l4-
Sev
eral
lim
es e
ach
day
and
exte
nded
use
proc
esse
s. U
se th
e ke
y b
the
right
.3-
Dra
y2-
At b
est c
bce
or M
ice
a w
eek
1- O
ccas
iona
lly o
nce
or tw
ice
a m
onth
0- S
eldo
m o
r ne
ver
used
_Wor
d pr
oces
sing
_Ana
lysi
s of
det
alpt
chis
m W
ag_S
prea
dshe
ets
Dat
abas
es
_Tei
scom
mun
ical
bra
__W
age
of in
brna
lkm
_Wan
e& p
roic
tice
end
pres
enta
tion
Ele
cted
; kul
nalio
nel m
ater
isk
deve
lopn
ent a
nd s
tora
ge_M
anag
emen
t ol i
nsirt
abn
_Man
ning
lor
Insa
uctic
eK
eepi
ng r
ecor
ds o
f stu
dent
per
form
ance
Oln
er a
pplic
atio
ns: P
leas
e de
scrib
e:
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
tch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
'
C. P
rofe
ssio
nal D
evel
opm
ent o
f Sc
hool
Sta
ffC
kcle
be
stat
emen
t bet
Met
SIX
IMIN
V W
M.
sl.t
'I
p.ot
.-t
ss.
s..
rso
i,s
sI
(a)
Ai t
hree
pla
ns a
rs w
ell c
orre
late
d an
dsu
ppor
t the
earn
' goa
ls.
(b)
Prol
sssl
onst
dev
elop
men
t act
iviti
es s
omew
hat
addi
ng th
e ne
eds
iden
tifie
d in
the
Scho
olT
edbo
logy
Pla
n.
2. E
deSS
II3e
Lde
niag
moo
treb
asia
kich
ogim
lava
labd
, Y. v
adat
Y o
taPt
ions
l
(a)
A r
ich
arra
y of
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t optio
nsar
e ab
ilibi
s b
scho
ol p
rofe
ssio
nals
, par
ecl,
and
wor
t erA
ll.
(b)
A v
arie
ty o
f pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent o
ptio
ns a
reav
alab
le to
teac
hers
and
suc
port
sta
ff.
Prof
essi
onal
dev
ebpm
ent a
ctiv
ities
sig
htly
addr
ess
be n
ew*
iden
tifie
d in
be
Schc
olT
echn
obgy
Pla
n.
DR
AFT
04/
17/9
5
Prol
etsi
onsl
dev
elop
men
t sal
via
dono
t at a
lm
eet t
he n
eeds
iden
iiiIK
I in
be
Scho
olT
echr
olog
y Pl
an.
(c)
(d)
Seve
ral h
airi
bg (
Mim
s ki
lech
nobg
y ar
eav
aila
ble
b le
ache
rs a
rid
edrn
inis
trab
re a
tsp
ecif
ied
Vim
thro
ugho
ut th
e pm
One
or
Iwo
plan
ned
hi*,
*ni
t am
mad
ebe
gat*
lo le
ache
rs e
ach y
ear.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
calk
mR
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R9
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
Pla
ce a
num
ber
n th
esp
ace
to W
olf t
ie in
dent
of a
vaia
bilit
y fo
r ea
ch o
f the
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t opt
ions
. Use
the
key
to ti
e rig
ht.
3- A
ntal
:4'1
pm r
eque
st2-
Ava
llatio
onc
e or
Mic
e ea
ch m
onth
1-A
vella
bie
once
at t
wic
e ea
ch s
emes
ter
0- N
ot a
velle
bie
_Coa
chin
gK
ET
pro
gram
s
___M
ento
ring le
clno
logy
(tu
nnel
s)_I
ndep
endu
ntin
tern
al r
esou
rces
Tel
ecom
mun
ical
iv fo
r pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent
___V
idea
raud
aspo
trai
ning
wor
ksho
psT
rain
611
khkw
dev
elop
men
t woc
hhop
e__
Tee
m s
tudy
gro
ws
For
mal
aca
dem
ic c
omes
Otw
opi
ate:
(P
leas
e &
sone
):
3. fi
chE
kkag
usin
ioni
tions
ialia
mla
vida
wro
lopt
ions
/C
uds
the
sial
emen
t tha
t wad
acm
e* a
pplie
s.(a
)(b
)(c
)(d
)P
rofe
ssio
nal d
even
pmen
t is
ongo
ing
with
a r
ich
varie
ty o
fA
var
iety
of p
rofe
ssi3
nal d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
are
opfb
ns d
esire
d lo
mee
t kul
kigl
ual s
chec
kies
ant n
eeds
.sc
hedu
led
thro
ugho
ut th
eye
ar.
Pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t opt
ions
tor t
echn
olog
y am
Pro
fess
iona
l dro
siop
men
t in
toe
sche
dule
d W
OW
*ne
s ea
chye
ar.
use
ol le
ctre
avy
is Im
bed
b on
eor
two
sche
dule
d w
orai
lmps
per
year
.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
inst
itut f
or E
duca
tbn
Res
eruc
h(K
IER
)D
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
RD
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
10
4. D
esic
aalIm
boal
ocal
atiin
gfin
togn
oion
ot t
rain
ing]
(a)
Tec
hnol
ogy
trai
ning
Is 1
1114
941W
into
pro
fess
iona
lT
echn
olog
y U
aini
ng o
ccur
s ild
epen
dent
ty o
l oth
er lo
pks.
Tec
hnol
ogy
trai
ning
doe
s no
t occ
ur.
deve
lvm
ent a
divi
lies
addr
essi
ng o
ther
are
as.
D. S
choo
l Tec
hnol
ogy
Com
mitt
ee: F
unct
ions
and
Pro
cess
esC
ircle
Itie
618
1011
,01
that
mos
t acc
urat
ely
spie
s.
I. C
amge
dica
glig
bagt
hibm
g2gu
ardu
s. fr
opro
sont
atio
n,st
akeh
oilo
is b
aud*
: kid
ivill
uals
Mei
dis
abili
ties,
hum
ors,
tond
lon,
pm
cça,
col
ossi
" en
trym
scre
*sa
sh*
pare
nts,
com
mun
ity a
nd A
voca
sta
ff)(a
)(h
)(c
)
DR
AFT
04/1
7/95
(d)
The
com
mitt
ee m
pres
ents
all
stak
ehol
ders
.T
he c
omm
ittee
rep
rese
nts
mos
t sta
keho
lder
s.T
he c
omm
ittee
rep
rese
nts
only
a le
w s
take
hold
ers.
The
com
mitt
ee d
oss
not r
ola
2. L
lanl
opm
aggi
ixS
chcs
asho
ghm
saae
w li
ntiv
emon
s01
sta
koho
ldna
l
(s)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Th
Sch
ool T
echn
olog
y A
cton
Pla
n is
a p
rodu
ct o
f tie
The
com
mitt
ee h
ad s
ome
inpu
t int
o te
Sch
ool T
echn
okig
yT
he c
omm
ittee
rev
iew
ed ti
e S
choo
l Tec
hnol
ogy
Acl
icri
Pla
n.T
he c
omm
ittee
hod
Illtl
e or
no
Inci
teco
mm
ittee
II c
olla
bora
tion
wilt
sta
keho
lder
s.A
ctio
n P
lan.
into
the
Sch
ool T
echm
ilogy
Acl
koP
lan.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
dy In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h(K
IER
)D
O N
OT
hE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
EW
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
11
L.;
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AII
AB
LE
su
3. Ih
tilis
kim
mai
nsIs
hica
mak
ino
(wan
edin
ghw
rnin
gC
ade
the
stat
emen
t tha
t mos
t acc
urat
ely
appl
ies.
(a)
The
com
men
ce 4
tire
dly
invo
lved
in th
eki
nclio
ning
of
Wee
d-ba
sed
deci
sion
mal
ting
muc
k, s
choo
ltr
ensi
orm
aike
pac
es: c
omm
ittee
s, a
nd p
rolu
sion
s!de
velo
pmen
t. 4.
(b)
(c)
The
com
mkt
es h
as s
ome
inpu
t int
o th
elu
nclio
ning
of s
choo
l-T
he c
omm
ittee
doe
s no
t hav
e a
proc
ess
for
wal
ling
with
base
d de
cisi
on m
akin
g co
w*
scho
ol tr
insi
orm
atio
nsc
hool
-bas
ed &
Won
mak
ing
com
e*, k
hool
proc
ess
com
mitt
ees,
and
prc
hasi
onal
dev
elop
men
tba
nsic
iern
alic
o pr
oces
s co
mm
ittee
s, a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal
deve
lopm
ent
le0
I11
......
Pita
. D.,
11,1
11,
11
(11)
*Unt
o pa
rtic
Oat
ionl
(14
The
ST
C p
artic
ipat
es in
a v
arie
ty o
f ins
truc
tiona
lle
dino
bgy
The
ST
C p
alid
(iate
s °c
aske
t* p
arbc
tiale
s h
hstr
uctio
nal t
echn
olog
y tr
aini
ng o
ppod
urgl
ian-
baki
lg o
ppod
unith
e.
5 C
saw
arita
kila
sacc
iirch
oola
tzat
ioac
tim
oo o
l com
petin
g:4
Ple
a a
deck
it th
e sp
ecs
itclic
atin
gyo
ur r
espo
nse.
Doe
s tie
sch
ool t
echn
olog
y co
onin
ator
rec
eive
com
pens
atio
n th
roug
h re
leas
elim
e or
sal
ary?
Yes
No
Ple
ase
expl
ain:
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cAy
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
rch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
195
The
ST
C o
nly
part
icip
ates
in in
stru
tiona
l tec
hnol
ogy
taki
ngN
o tr
aini
ng c
ppor
kmity
is p
rovi
ded
prov
ided
by
tie s
tele
.re
late
d lo
inee
ruct
ion
tedi
rmIc
cy.
6._A
dditO
D
*UN
ol i
nwlv
amon
g
Doe
s th
e st
hool
tech
nolo
gy c
oord
inat
or r
ecei
vecl
uelu
nitie
s lo
r
Adr
irkna
l tra
inin
gD
ecis
ion
rnal
dng
Res
pona
bilid
es o
n in
stru
ctio
nal i
ssue
s
Yee
te3
Yes
No
Yes
No
S
E. K
entu
cky
Edu
catio
n T
echn
olog
y Sy
stem
(K
ET
S)R
esou
rces
I. Ila
litur
tmar
alet
Acc
usbi
kri
Use
a c
heck
to I
deat
e th
e Ir
ml o
l acc
esst
hlR
y.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Ful a
cces
s in
lim
y an
d th
roug
hout
Som
e ac
cess
in W
ary
and
thro
ugho
utlim
ited
acce
ss in
lim
y an
d th
roug
hout
scho
ol. a
nd k
om h
arm
.sc
hool
, and
kom
hom
e.sc
hwa
and
kom
hor
ns.
Ele
ctro
de in
stm
ctio
nal m
ated
als
(sol
twar
e. C
O-R
OIA
s. la
ser
Coo
s)
flIS
CU
th s
ervi
ces
Inte
rnet
Ele
ctro
de c
atal
og e
nd c
ircu
latio
n
Oth
er: P
leas
e &
mat
e:
2. E
troa
thA
iwac
am Is
cass
blirg
Cir
cle
the
stat
emen
t tha
t 11V
3Si a
ccur
atel
y ap
plie
s.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The
re a
re p
hone
s M
al c
lass
rcom
s.
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
(d)
The
re is
no
acce
ss in
Sca
ly a
ndth
roug
hout
sch
ool,
srE
l lin
m h
one.
Tho
m a
rs p
hone
s in
som
e cl
assr
oom
s with
The
re is
acc
ess
to a
pho
ne fr
om c
lass
room
s.Fe
w il
any
teac
hers
hay
s sc
am to
pho
nes
acce
ssto
a p
hone
Ina
al c
lass
room
s.fr
om b
elt c
lass
room
s.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
dy In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h(K
IER
)D
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
EW
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
13
lor
drag
gy C
ircle
the
stat
emen
ts tu
t mos
t acc
urat
ely
appl
ies.
tal
(b)
(c)
WK
le A
rea
Net
wor
kO
ffice
4 c
urre
ntly
bei
ng w
ind
b th
e K
M'S
Wid
eO
ffice
ieM
onth
eKE
tSw
idss
rean
elw
ork
Ana
Net
wor
k, s
oftw
are
4 be
ing
inst
alle
d
(a)
(b)
Offi
ce p
erso
nnel
use
Mic
roso
ft O
ffce
and
DA
S s
oftw
are
4 W
aled
. per
sonn
el a
re in
MO
NIS
(D
istr
ict A
dmin
istr
ativ
e S
oftw
are-
DA
S)
proc
ess
of b
eing
Inkl
ing.
som
e us
e ev
dent
F. S
uppo
rt fo
r K
ET
S
1. ti
cola
ssed
laIS
EIS
imaM
men
lita
taw
ot s
urfe
dC
ircle
hi s
tIMM
ill fi
at m
ost
accu
rat*
app
les.
(11)
(b)
(c)
(c)
Offc
c do
se r
iot u
se D
AS
sof
twar
e.
The
re 4
bro
ad d
ocum
ente
dT
here
4 d
pcum
ente
d su
ppod
for
KE
TS
The
re is
doc
umen
ted
supp
on fo
r K
ET
SD
ocum
ente
d su
ppor
t fro
m s
take
hold
ers
4su
ppod
for
KE
TS
from
al
from
a m
e)xi
ty o
f sta
keho
lder
s.fr
om s
ome
stak
ehoi
ders
lack
ing.
stak
ehol
ders
.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
tch(
KIE
R)
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R14
SC
.
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
Rac
e a
num
ber
in a
m s
pace
toE
X12
1141
1/12
013
indi
cate
IN e
xten
t at s
uppo
rt.
3- T
hem
ant
doc
umen
ted
Use
the
key
b th
e ki
ht.
resu
lts k
en s
uppo
d2-
Uw
e ar
e ac
tions
toD
istit
t sch
ool b
oard
supp
ed K
ET
SD
istr
ict b
irtin
iallI
On
1- T
hin
is d
oclm
ente
d_D
istr
ict i
schn
obgy
evid
ence
el a
pla
n to
coor
dina
tor
supp
ort K
ET
S__
Sch
ool p
rlici
pal
0- T
here
is K
U o
r no
Sch
oll-b
ased
min
dev
iden
ce c
il su
ppor
tT
each
ers
Par
ents
Stu
dent
s
_Com
mun
ityO
ther
. (N
ese
desc
ribe)
:
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h(K
IER
)D
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
EO
R D
IST
RIB
UT
EW
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
15
8,
2. S
stra
tass
tiabl
iatil
swic
aLl=
(num
ber.
viti
olC
ircle
Ihe
stel
emen
t tat
mod
aca
mdd
y ap
plie
s.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The
re is
a b
road
arr
ay o
f act
iviti
es th
at
build
aw
aren
ess
and
suP
Pog
t or
KE
TS
.M
on M
a a
sign
ifica
nt n
umbe
r of
act
iviti
esT
here
ars
MN
adV
ilias
that
bui
dT
here
me
very
few
act
iviti
es th
at b
uild
that
bui
d aw
aren
ess
end
supp
ort l
ot K
ET
S.
awar
eirs
and
sup
ort i
ce K
ET
S.
supp
ort b
r K
ET
S.
DR
AF
T 0
4/17
/95
Pla
ce a
che
dr it
the
spac
e lo
indi
cate
the
echo
otba
sed
activ
ities
tat s
uppo
rt K
ET
S a
nd d
escr
ibe
the
supp
ort.
_Cor
nput
er b
an p
rogr
ams
Des
aipt
ion
of S
uppo
rt
_Stu
dent
Toc
hnob
gy L
eade
rshi
p P
rogr
amD
escr
iptio
n of
Sup
port
:
_Bus
ines
s pa
rtne
rshi
psD
escr
iptio
n of
Sup
port
:
_Tec
hnob
gy Iv
esD
escr
iptio
n of
Sup
port
:
Sch
ool v
olun
teer
sD
escr
iptio
n ot
Sup
port
New
slet
ters
Des
crip
tion
of S
uppo
rt:
Med
ia s
how
sD
escr
ipfa
n of
Sup
port
:
_Effo
rts
to in
ium
i par
ents
, com
mun
ity le
ader
s, le
gisl
ator
sD
escr
iptio
n of
Sup
port
:
Oth
er (
Ple
ase
desc
ribe)
:D
escr
iptio
n of
Sup
port
:
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e K
entu
c4 In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h(K
IER
)D
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
TP
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
16
0Li
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
APPENDIX B
Principal Interview
43
91
CODE
Principal Interview
1. How many students are there in this school?
2. How many primary classrooms are there in this school?
3. How many of the classrooms have:
A Teacher Workstation?
A Classroom Computer for Students?
Meet the KETS 6:1 Student:Computer Ratio?
A Telephone?
4. How many computer labs does your school have?
5. Is your school on track regarding the technology diffusion as set forth in yourschool technology plan?
6. What percentage of the children in your school are on free or reduced lunch?
7. How many of the teachers use technology ?
...For Instruction?
...For Management or Record Keeping?
8. Are there any teachers that work together as teams? If so, how many?
How many teachers are there in the team?
92
Do these teachers use technology?
Do they plan together?
9. Have your teachers been trained in technology? What training have they had? Arethey using technology more in their classrooms?
10. Do you use technology as the school administrator? How? Have you receivedtraining? Are you computer literate?
11. Does your school have a student technology leadership program? Does the schooltechnology coordinator receive release time to do that job?
12. What were your school's assessment results?
(If the principal response indicates good assessment results, probe with thefollowing: What impact do you think technology had on your assessment results? )
APPENDIX C
Teacher Interview
44
94
CODE
Teacher Interview
1. How have your instructional practices changed as a result of the technologyprogram?
2. What effect has the technology had on your [discipline] e.g. social studies?
What software/hardware/technology are you using for your instruction?
3. Have you had technology training? Are you using it?
Was the training adequate to your classroom needs?
[If not, probe regarding what training is needed... etc.]
4. Has your school begun SBDM?
If yes, when?
If yes, What impact did the council have on the technology program?
5. The technology program is based on several critical attributes. Which of thoseattributes have you found easiest to implement? Which have been the hardest?
[If some attributes are not mentioned, prompt with the following: You have mentioned(attributes mentioned in 5). How easy or hard have the others been? ]
3-)
Critical attributes: Meeting the needs of individual learnersSupport for technology assessmentTechnology support for inclusive instructionPreparing students for a technological societyPreparing students to find and use information appropriatelyTechnology support for communication and collaboration
6. Does your school have a technology rich media center? In what ways do you usethe school media center?
7. Is there anything else that you want to add regarding the technology program?
96
APPENDIX D
Comparison of High/Low Implementorsfor Study I and Study II
Figures 5 -16
45
Figure 5Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataKETS Resources
100%90 %80 %70 %60 %50%40 %30%20 %10 % ill MEI
I0 % I
ARecommended Acceptable Less Than Unacceptable
Best Practices Acceptable PracticesPractices Practices
100%90 %80 %70%60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10 %
0 %A B .: D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
Technology 0 Consistency of 111 Available Software
Availability to Technology w/Plan ApplicationsIndividuals
46
98
0
Figure 6Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataTechnology Used in the Instructional Process
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0 %A
Recommended AcceptableBest Practices
Practices
Less ThanAcceptable
Practices
UnacceptablePractices
HighlyUnacceptable
Practices
100%90%80 %70 %
60 %
50%40%30%20%10%0%
A
RecommendedBest
Practices
1111AcceptablePractices
ILLess ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
HighlyUnacceptable
Practices
III Technology-Rich Environment 0 Extent of technology applicationin Instructional Process
47
99
I01
0-J
Figure 7Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataProfessional Development of School Staff
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
100%90%80%70%60%50 %40 %
30%20%10 %
0 %A
RecommendedBest
Practices
B
AcceptablePractices
CLess ThanAcceptablePractices
D
UnacceptablePractices
III Consistency El Professional 11111 Scheduling of MI Design Of
among Development Training Technology
Technology Options in Options Training
Plan and Other Technology
Plans
48
10 0
Figure 8Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataThe School Technology Committee: Function and Process
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than Unacceptable
Best Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0 %A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
EEl
UnacceptablePractices
111 Composition of El Development of I Involvement in III Professional
School School Decision Development of
Technology Technology Making School
Committee Action Plan Technolog;Coordinator
49
101
0J
Figure 9Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataKETS Resources
100%90 %80 %70%60 %50 %40 %30%20 %10%
0 %
ARecommended
BestPractices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices.
UnacceptablePractices
100%90 %80 %
70 %60 %50 %
40 %30 %
20 %10%
%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
The
Library/MediaCenter
O Phones In CentralClassrooms Office/Wiring
to Wide Area
Network
CentralOffice/UsingMUNIS
Software
50
102
0
Figure 10Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study I: External Evaluation DataCommunity Support for KETS
100%90%80%70%60%50 %40%30%20%10%
%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptable
Practices
UnacceptablePractices
100%90%80 %70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptable
Practices
UnacceptablePractices
III Group Support for KETS O School-based Activities to SupportKETS
51
103
0
Figure 11Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataTechnology Support for KERA Initiatives Component
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
%
A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0 %
A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
III Technology 0 Consistency of I Available SoftwareAvailability to Technology w/Plan ApplicationsIndividuals
52
104
0-J
Figure 12Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataTechnology Used in the Instructional Process
100%
90 %
80%
70%
60 %
50 %
40%
30%
20%10%
%
ARecommended
BestPractices
Acceptable Less ThanPractices Acceptable
Practices
Unacceptable HighlyPractices Unacceptable
Practices
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%40%
30%
20%
10%
0 % MINN==A
RecommendedBest
Practices
ILAcceptable Less Than Unacceptable HighlyPractices Acceptable Practices Unacceptable
Practices Practices
Technology Rich Environment 0 Extent of technology applicationin Instructional Process
53
105
Figure 13Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataProfessional Development of School Staff
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
100%90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10%%
ARecommended
BestPractices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
IIII Consistencyamong
Technology
Plan and OtherPlans
o ProfessionalDevelopment
Options inTechnology
Scheduling ofTrainingOptions
Design of
Technology
Training
54
106
I0I
0_1
Figure 14Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataThe School Technology Committee: Function and Process
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0 %
-I
I in
ElI
A B C D
Recommended Acceptable Less Than UnacceptableBest Practices Acceptable Practices
Practices Practices
Composition of
School
Technology
Committee
0 Development ofSchool
Technology
Action Plan
1111 Involvement in
DecisionMaking
111 Professional
Development of
School
Technology
Coordinator
55
107
0
Figure 15Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataKETS Resources
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
ARecommended
BestPractices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptablePractices
UnacceptablePractices
100%
90%80%70 %
60%50%40%
30%20%10%
0 %A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less ThanAcceptable
Practices
UnacceptablePractices
III TheLlbrary/MediaCenter
O Phones in III CentralClassrooms Office/Wiring
to Wide Area
Network
III CentralOffice/UsingMUNIS
Software
56
10 S
Figure 16Comparison of High/Low Implementors for
Study II: Self-Assessment DataCommunity Support for KETS
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10 %
0%A
RecommendedBest
Practices
AcceptablePractices
Less Than UnacceptableAcceptable PracticesPractices
100%90%80%70%60%50 %40%30 %20 %
10%0 %
A B CRecommended Acceptable Less Than
Best Practices AcceptablePractices Practices
UnacceptablePractices
III Group Support for KETS 0 School-based Activities toSupport KETS
57
109