Human Capacity
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pre TIS Program
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Post TIS Program
Human Capacity: Intellectual proficiency and will--knowledge, expertise, and understanding.
**All differences are statistically significant.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I have a strong understanding of how to use/apply the resources from Thinkfinity.
I have a strong understanding of how to use/apply the resources from Curriculum Pathways/SAS.
I have a strong understanding of how to use/apply the resources from Writing Roadmap 2.0.
I have a strong understanding of how to use/apply the resources from Acuity.
I have a strong understanding of how to use/apply the resources from TechSteps.
I am able to assess the quality and legitimacy of web resources.
I understand the most important issues surrounding legal use/copyright regulations and how they
apply to integrating web resources and technology into lesson plans and instruction.
I am able to identify the components of a URL and to ensure it is legitimate (e.g., protocol, host,
domain, directory, port address, etc.).
I have a strong understanding of the core NETS-T.
I have a strong understanding of the core NETS-S.
I understand how to integrate Web 2.0 tools into instruction (e.g., podcasting, wikis and blogs,
social networking, etc.).
I integrate digital resources/tools into my work with teachers, students and administrators.
I understand how to effectively integrate technology into instruction to improve the quality of
students' educational experiences.
I have a strong understanding of the county/school acceptable use policy.
I have a strong understanding of 21st century assessment.
I have a strong understanding of how to design and implement project based learning (PBL) in the
classroom.
I actively use action research to assess the impact of my teaching on student learning.
Organizational Capacity
5
4
3
2
1
0
18
19
Pre TIS Program
20
21
22
Post TIS Program
Organizational Capacity: Interaction, collaboration and communication among individuals in the system.
**All differences are statistically significant.
18
19
20
21
22
I model lessons that integrate technology for other teachers in the school.
I collaborate with others within the school to effectively integrate technology into instruction.
I serve as a resource to other teachers regarding the effective use of technology in the school.
I can effectively work with others to assess their learning and information needs (e.g., other
teachers, students, administrators, etc.).
I have an ongoing dialogue with other staff members at the school about technology issues and
how they can be addressed.
Structural Capacity
5
4
3
2
1
0
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Pre TIS Program
Post TIS Program
Structural Capacity: The elements of the system which exist independent of the people who use those
elements (e.g., policies, procedures and formalized practices).
**All differences are statistically significant. Item 33 achieved significance due to rounding (i.e., p =.054
became p=.05)
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The school has set a time and place where staff meet in professional communities of practice to
discuss how to effectively integrate technology into instruction.
Teachers at the school have time to co-plan and/or co-teach lessons that integrate technology into
instruction.
Staff at the school understand the acceptable use policy.
Staff at the school understand key concepts and best practices regarding web literacy.
Staff at the school understand the most important issues surrounding legal use/copyright
regulations and how they relate to integrating web resources and technology into lesson plans and
instruction.
Staff at the school are familiar with the technology components of the school's strategic plan.
The school has policies and procedures in place that support the use of PBL.
The school has policies and procedures in place that support the use of technology resources
(thinkfinity, acuity, writing roadmap, etc.).
Staff at the school regularly use Thinkfinity and/or Curriculum Pathways (SAS) as a resource in the
classroom.
Staff at the school regularly use writing roadmap 2.0 or another online writing program as a
formative assessment of student writing.
The school has a plan in place to support the implementation of TechSteps.
Staff at the school regularly use TechSteps as part of their core content instruction.
Staff at the school understand the core NETS-T.
Staff at the school understand the core NETS-S.
Staff at the school understand West Virginia's 21st centure skills and tools.
Staff at the school use Web 2.0 tools for collaboration and instruction.
Staff at the school frequently integrate digital resources/tools in their teaching.
Material Capacity
5
4
3
2
1
0
40
41
Pre TIS Program
42
43
44
Post TIS Program
Material Capacity: Fiscal and/or other material supports available to the people in the system.
**All differences are statistically significant.
40
41
42
43
44
I have access to a variety of high quality technology resources at my school (e.g., computer, digital
camera, whiteboard, etc.).
I participated in a variety of professional development about integrating technology resources into
instruction.
I feel I am able to direct staff in my school toward high quality technology resources that are
relevant to their information needs.
I have the ability to develop useful technology resources for my school that address our
information needs.
I know where to find useful and high quality technology resources that can be integrated into
instruction.
Human Capacity Index
2.8
4.5
Pre TIS Program
Organizational Capacity Index
2.83
4.46
3.85
Post TIS Program
Structural Capacity Index
3.33
Material Capacity Index
2.99
4.63
Index
Human Capacity Index
Organizational Capacity Index
Structural Capacity Index
Material Capacity Index
** All differences are statistically significant
Items Included
1 – 17
18 – 22
23 – 39
40 – 44
Pre-Test α
.95
.94
.82
.80
Post-Test α
.88
.88
.77
.93
*Each index is a standardized measure based on multiple items. The table below displays the reliability coefficients for each scale during the preand post-test administrations (Note: an α value of .70 or higher is considered highly reliable).
0
1
2
3
4
5
Capacity Indices*
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
ES
1.46
1.51
2.11
1.94
1.62
1.31
ITEM
7
8
9
10
11
12
ES
2.58
1.68
1.89
1.91
2.9
1.98
ITEM
13
14
15
16
17
18
negligible effect (>= -0.15 and <.15)
small effect (>=.15 and <.40)
medium effect (>=.40 and <.75)
large effect (>=.75 and <1.10)
very large effect (>=1.10 and higher)
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
Effect Size by Item
ES
2.28
1.15
2.11
2.02
2.01
1.96
ITEM
19
20
21
22
23
24
ES
2.1
1.87
1.57
1.47
0.65
0.72
Item
25
26
27
28
29
30
ES
0.52
1.02
1.07
0.57
0.87
0.91
Effect Size
Survey Item
ITEM
31
32
33
34
35
36
ES
0.99
0.91
0.68
0.58
0.6
0.59
ITEM
37
38
39
40
41
42
ES
0.65
0.81
1.05
1.90
2.07
2.12
ITEM
43
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Effect size interpretations are as follows:
Effect Size
ES
2.36
1.84
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Human
2.61
negligible effect (>= -0.15 and <.15)
small effect (>=.15 and <.40)
medium effect (>=.40 and <.75)
large effect (>=.75 and <1.10)
very large effect (>=1.10 and higher)
Effect size interpretations are as follows:
Effect Size
Organizational
Effect Size
Capacity Indices
2.04
Structural
1.29
Effect Size by Capacity Area
Material
2.58