ED 394 973 SP 036 689 TITLE Technology System (KETS ... · 439 Strickler Hall University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292. Ernie W. Stamper Ashland Petroleum Co. P. 0. Box 391 Ashland,

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 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


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 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 obtain feedback on ways to improve the design of the Configuration Map forEducation Technology.

7

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The Statewide Study Sample


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


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).


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


school for instruction,


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


school for instructions,


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%


school runs counter to the

diffusion of techr.ology laid out

in the school's current

technology plan.

0%14%


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.


Computers and other



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



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


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.


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


17%13%

Technology applications

are seldom used as

ongoing elements in the


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


technology plan.

33%38%

Plans have little correlation.


activities slightly address the


technology plan.

Plans have no correlation.


activities do not address the


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.


A variety of professional


available to teachers and

support staff.

50%33%

Several professional


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.


A variety of professional

development opportunities are

scheduled throughout the year.

32%32%


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.


Technology training occurs

independently of other topics.

37%49%

Technology training does not

occur during the year.

0%3%

19


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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



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


Practices Practices

Technology 0 Consistency of 111 Available Software

Availability to Technology w/Plan ApplicationsIndividuals

46

98

0


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


HighlyUnacceptable

Practices

100%90%80 %70 %

60 %

50%40%30%20%10%0%

A

RecommendedBest

Practices

1111AcceptablePractices

ILLess ThanAcceptablePractices


HighlyUnacceptable

Practices

III Technology-Rich Environment 0 Extent of technology applicationin Instructional Process

47

99

I01

0-J


Study I: External Evaluation DataProfessional Development of School Staff

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%A B C D


Practices Practices

100%90%80%70%60%50 %40 %

30%20%10 %

0 %A

RecommendedBest

Practices

B

AcceptablePractices

CLess ThanAcceptablePractices

D


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


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


EEl


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



100%90 %80 %70%60 %50 %40 %30%20 %10%

0 %

ARecommended

BestPractices

AcceptablePractices

Less ThanAcceptablePractices.


100%90 %80 %

70 %60 %50 %

40 %30 %

20 %10%

%A

RecommendedBest

Practices

AcceptablePractices



The

Library/MediaCenter

O Phones In CentralClassrooms Office/Wiring

to Wide Area

Network

CentralOffice/UsingMUNIS

Software

50

102

0


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


100%90%80 %70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%A

RecommendedBest

Practices

AcceptablePractices

Less ThanAcceptable

Practices


III Group Support for KETS O School-based Activities to SupportKETS

51

103

0


Study II: Self-Assessment DataTechnology Support for KERA Initiatives Component

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

%

A B C D


Practices Practices

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0 %

A B C D


Practices Practices

III Technology 0 Consistency of I Available SoftwareAvailability to Technology w/Plan ApplicationsIndividuals

52

104

0-J


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


Study II: Self-Assessment DataProfessional Development of School Staff

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%A

RecommendedBest

Practices

AcceptablePractices



100%90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10%%

ARecommended

BestPractices

AcceptablePractices



IIII Consistencyamong

Technology

Plan and OtherPlans

o ProfessionalDevelopment

Options inTechnology

Scheduling ofTrainingOptions

Design of

Technology

Training

54

106

I0I

0_1


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


Practices Practices

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0 %

-I

I in

ElI

A B C D


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


Study II: Self-Assessment DataKETS Resources

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

ARecommended

BestPractices

AcceptablePractices



100%

90%80%70 %

60%50%40%

30%20%10%

0 %A

RecommendedBest

Practices

AcceptablePractices

Less ThanAcceptable

Practices


III TheLlbrary/MediaCenter

O Phones in III CentralClassrooms Office/Wiring

to Wide Area

Network

III CentralOffice/UsingMUNIS

Software

56

10 S


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


III Group Support for KETS 0 School-based Activities toSupport KETS

57

109

Documents

ED 394 973 SP 036 689 TITLE Technology System (KETS ... · 439 Strickler Hall University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292. Ernie W. Stamper Ashland Petroleum Co. P. 0. Box 391 Ashland,