BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.S./Ed.D. Program
Instructional Technology - ITEC 8430
Planning and Implementing Instructional Technology
Programs
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Department: Instructional Technology
Department phone number:
Semester: XXXX
Credit Hours: 3
INSTRUCTOR:
e-mail:
Web page:
Office Phone:
TEXTS:
Whitehead, B., Jensen, D, & Boschee, F. (2003). Planning for Technology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Instructional Technology or approval of the
Educational Leadership Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
This course is designed to prepare candidates to facilitate the development of a shared vision for
the comprehensive integration of technology and focus on policies, procedures, and budgeting
that will foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of the vision. This course
is also designed to assist candidates with the planning and facilitation of the technology
infrastructure within a school.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Research has shown that many K-12 instructional technology initiatives have failed because illdefined visions for technology’s role in learning, lack of coordination with other local initiatives,
and/or low levels of support from one or more key stakeholder groups. For these reasons,
candidates must be prepared to facilitate collaborative planning efforts that will result in welldesigned, comprehensive instructional technology programs that are staged for success.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 17
KSU CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and facilitators of the
teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values, and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public
and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process,
the teacher education faculty at KSU believe that the concept of expertise is central to preparing
effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming
Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that
expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master
teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve
student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses,
candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel
confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
Field Experience:
While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a variety of
school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may
include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating
in leadership activities, attending PTA/school board meetings, and participating in educationrelated community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore
every opportunity to learn by doing.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 17
Diversity:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and
assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore
how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific
methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure,
sexual orientation, and geographic region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences
provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an
individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information
contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.
Doctorate of Education (EdD)
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the The Kennesaw
State University Doctorate of Education program of the Bagwell College of Education reflect the
unique aspects of this degree. Collaboratively developed by faculty from across the university
and in consultation with community/school partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate
the high expectations we have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly, the
proficiencies reflect the complex nature of student learning in advanced degree programs leading
to a terminal degree. Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed below incorporate aspects
of knowledge, skills and dispositions within a single proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly
linked to our conceptual framework, The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching,
Learning and Leadership.
Graduates from the Doctorate of Education Program at Kennesaw State University
1. Demonstrate leadership as advocates for students and education. Candidates
a. synthesize and apply the latest research on learning, leadership, developmental theory
advocating the implementation of best practices and assist colleagues to do the same to
ensure all students learn.
b. are knowledgeable, articulate and think critically about educational practice, policy and
issues on national and international arenas.
c. understand, respond to , and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context in matters related to education.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 3
of 17
d. are knowledgeable about the factors contributing to safe physical environments for
education.
e. develop, articulate, implement, and steward a vision of learning supported by the
school community
2. Demonstrate leadership as agents for change, collaboration and collegiality. Candidates
a. understand the complexity of schools and the ambiguous nature of educational issues.
b. act in concert with and/or on behalf of colleagues to improve teaching and learning in
the classroom as supported by effective school, district, state level policies and
operations.
c. facilitate shared-decision making and teamwork.
d. improve teaching and learning by intentionally and systematically building networks of
influence at local, state, national and international arenas.
e. impact student learning for all and mentor other educators to do the same by effectively
working within the structures and culture of schools, families and communities.
f. support the teaching and learning process by soliciting all sources of funding and
educational resources.
3. Demonstrate leadership as mentors. Candidates
a. support and guide teachers to improve teaching and learning for all.
b. are committed to improving student learning by improving teaching and the learning
environment.
c. model routine, intentional, and effective use of technology while mentori8ng and
encouraging others to do the same.
4. Demonstrate leadership as expert teachers and instructional leaders. Candidates
a. are creative and flexible in their thinking and in seeking solutions to educational
challenges.
b. are knowledgeable of assessment, evaluation and accountability practices and critically
synthesize and utilize the data to improve student learning.
c. are master-teachers and instructional leaders possessing and demonstrating content and
pedagogical expertise who are able to make international comparisons in both areas.
d. develop and/or support appropriate, meaningful curricula that positively impact student
learning for all and assist others to do the same.
e. facilitate and support curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning
environments that integrate appropriate technologies to maximize teaching and
learning.
f. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings
to improve instructional practice and student learning.
5. Demonstrate leadership as models of professionalism. Candidates
a. effectively design and conduct educational research which positively influences
educational practice or policy.
b. exhibit ethical behavior in all professional and personal interactions.
c. respect others, value differences and are open to feedback.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 17
d. believe that for every problem there is a solution and actualize that belief when
engaging colleagues, students, families and community partners.
e. seek out responsibility and are accountable for their actions.
f. maintain current knowledge and best practices through continued professional
development.
6. Demonstrate leadership in meeting the needs of diverse constituents. Candidates
a. value and recognize the strength and power of diversity.
b. incorporate global perspectives and cultural richness in curriculum planning and
decision making.
c. address exceptionalities in planning, teaching, and assessment and respond to diverse
community interests and needs by mobilizing community resources.
d. proactively and intentionally advocate for and work to build educational environments
that are inclusive and supportive of diverse students, families and colleagues.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: (Aligned to Content Standards)
Candidates will be able to initiate and lead long-range strategic planning processes that are
focused on using educational technologies to improve student achievement. In pursuit of this
goal, this course will address the following learning objectives (TF Standards I, II, III, V, VI,
VII, and VIII):
In pursuit of these goals, the learning objectives of this course include:
1. Conducting needs assessment to determine baseline data necessary to planning
technology programs (ex. Teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions toward
technology) (TF I)
2. Ensuring good technology planning by staying abreast of current and emerging
technologies
3. Planning and Designing Learning Environments to maximize the impact of technology
on teaching and learning (TF II)
4. Applying current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning
learning environments and experiences (TF II)
5. Creating a vision for learning by modeling strategies reflecting current research on
teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and
experiences (TF II)
6. Planning for the management of technology resources within the context of learning
activities (TF II)
7. Planning strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment
(TF III)
8. Planning for learning environments that allow for the full implementation of state and
national technology integration standards (NETS-S) (TF III)
9. Planning technology environments that support learner-centered strategies and address
the diverse needs of students (TF III)
10. Planning for the implementation and support of adaptive and assistive technology for
learners who need them (TF III)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 17
11. Planning instructional technology programs to promote the development of students'
creativity, problem solving ability and other higher order skills (TF III)
12. Planning for the management of student learning activities in a technology-enhanced
environment (TF III)
13. Researching and planning for the most effective configurations of technology in school
settings (ex: 1:1, small group, classroom, and/or lab settings) (TF III)
14. Summarize and disseminate major research findings and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support good planning and the integration throughout the
curriculum (TF III)
15. Evaluating students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning,
communication, and productivity in order to engage in good planning and to chart
progress toward technology plan goals (TF IV)
16. Planning for and monitoring the effective use of technologies that support best
professional practices and enhanced professional productivity in school settings (TF V)
17. Using the technology planning process to analyze, draft and implement that rules,
policies, and procedures to support the safe, healthy, legal and ethical use of technology
(ex. CIPA compliance, acceptable use, Internet safety, and copyright laws related to print,
video, music and other media) (TF VI)
18. Informing technology planning processes by conducting research to determine effective
strategies for achieving equitable access to technology resources for all students and
teachers (TF VII)
19. Developing rules, policy and procedures to ensure equitable distribution and use of
technologies for all learners (TF VII)
20. Staying abreast of current developments to configure computer/technology systems and
related peripherals in laboratory, classroom cluster, and other appropriate instructional
arrangements (TF VII)
21. Ensuring good planning processes, by staying abreast of available and emerging
technologies related to instruction; administration; and network infrastructure and design
(LAN/WAN) (TF VII)
22. Informing the technology planning process with best practices in maintenance, inventory,
support, and management of technological resources (TF VII)
23. Calculating the total cost of ownership (including technical support, maintenance, and
refreshing equipment) for technology planning/budgeting purposes (TF VII)
24. Analyzing and implementing guidelines for budget planning and management procedures
related to educational computing and technology facilities and resources (TF VII)
25. Analyzing and applying current information involving facilities planning issues and
computer related technologies (TF VII)
26. Applying policies and procedures concerning staging, scheduling, and security for
managing computers/technology in a variety of school/laboratory/classroom settings (TF
VII)
27. Researching specifications for purchasing technology systems (TF VII)
28. Informing the technology planning process with best practices and research (TF VII)
29. Using the technology planning process to facilitate desirable change in schools (TF VIII)
30. Develop and implement activities that focus on the history of technology use in schools.
31. Engaging in community-based planning and understanding the benefits of involving
community in planning (TF VIII)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 6
of 17
32. Locating an existing partnership within a school setting and understanding the
advantages of well-formed partnerships (TF VIII)
33. Using the technology planning process to form school partnerships to support technology
integration (TF VIII)
34. Disseminating information on effective cooperative group processes that facilitate highquality technology planning (TF VIII)
35. Locating strategies to market and report progress on a technology plan (TF VIII)
36. Determining essential components and qualities of a school technology plan (TF VIII)
37. Determining strategies and procedures needed for procuring technology-based systems
including hardware and software (TF VIII)
38. Determining state and local law/policy for procuring technologies and accounting for
funds (TF VIII)
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – aligned to Program Standards
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these
understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a
result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these courses, the candidate will
demonstrate the following outcomes:
Course objective
Doctoral
KSDs
1. Conducting needs assessment to
determine baseline data necessary to
planning technology programs (ex.
Teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions toward technology)
2. Ensuring good technology planning
by staying abreast of current and
emerging technologies
3. Planning and Designing Learning
Environments to maximize the impact of
technology on teaching and learning
5f
4. Applying current research on teaching
and learning with technology when
planning learning environments and
experiences
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
5f
3b, 4e
1a, 4e
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Operations
Leader
Performance
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Operations
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.5
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 7
of 17
5. Creating a vision for learning by
modeling strategies reflecting current
research on teaching and learning with
technology when planning learning
environments and experiences
1a
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
6. Planning for the management of
technology resources within the context
of learning activities
4e
7. Planning strategies to manage student
learning in a technology-enhanced
environment
4e
8. Planning for learning environments
4e
that allow for the full implementation of
state and national technology integration
standards
9. Planning technology environments
4e, 6a, 6c,
that support learner-centered strategies
6d
and address the diverse needs of students
10. Planning for the implementation and
support of adaptive and assistive
technology for learners who need them
4e, 6a, 6c,
6d
11. Planning instructional technology
programs to promote the development of
students' creativity, problem solving
ability and other higher order skills
12. Planning for the management of
student learning activities in a
technology-enhanced environment
4d
13. Researching and planning for the
most effective configurations of
technology in school settings (ex: 1:1,
small group, classroom, and/or lab
settings)
14. Summarize and disseminate major
4e
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Operations
Leader
Performance
Leader
4e
1a
Operations
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Operations
Leader
Learning
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.5
1.2, 1.5
Page 8
of 17
research findings and trends related to
the use of technology in education to
support good planning and the
integration throughout the curriculum
15. Evaluating students' appropriate use 4b
of technology resources for learning,
communication, and productivity in
order to engage in good planning and to
chart progress toward technology plan
goals
16. Planning for and monitoring the
4b
effective use of technologies that support
best professional practices and enhanced
professional productivity in school
settings
Development
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
Operations
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Process
Improvement
Leader
Learning
Development
Leader
17. Using the technology planning
process to analyze, draft and implement
that rules, policies, and procedures to
support the safe, healthy, legal and
ethical use of technology (ex. CIPA
compliance, acceptable use, Internet
safety, and copyright laws related to
print, video, music and other media)
18. Informing technology planning
processes by conducting research to
determine effective strategies for
achieving equitable access to technology
resources for all students and teachers
1b, 1c, 5b
19. Developing rules, policy and
procedures to ensure equitable
distribution and use of technologies for
all learners
1b, 1c, 5b
20. Staying abreast of current
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Operations
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
1.5
Operations
Leader
5a
5f
Process
Improvement
Leader
Operations
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
Operations
Leader
Learning &
1.5
1.5
1.2, 1.5
Page 9
of 17
developments to configure
computer/technology systems and
related peripherals in laboratory,
classroom cluster, and other appropriate
instructional arrangements
21. Ensuring good planning processes,
by staying abreast of available and
emerging technologies related to
instruction; administration; and network
infrastructure and design (LAN/WAN)
Development
Leader
5f
22. Informing the technology planning
process with best practices in
maintenance, inventory, support, and
management of technological resources
23. Calculating the total cost of
ownership (including technical support,
maintenance, and refreshing equipment)
for technology planning/budgeting
purposes
24. Analyzing and implementing
guidelines for budget planning and
management procedures related to
educational computing and technology
facilities and resources
25. Analyzing and applying current
information involving facilities planning
issues and computer related technologies
26. Applying policies and procedures
concerning staging, scheduling, and
security for managing
computers/technology in a variety of
school/laboratory/classroom settings
4e
27. Researching specifications for
purchasing technology systems
4e
28. Informing the technology planning
process with best practices and research
Operations
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Operations
Leader
Operations
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.5
1b
Operations
Leader
1.5
1b
Operations
Leader
1.5
4e
Operations
Leader
1.5
1b
Process
Improvement
Leader
1.5
1a
Operations
Leader
Process
Improvement
Leader
Operations
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Operations
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 17
29. Using the technology planning
process to facilitate desirable change in
schools
30. Develop and implement activities
that focus on the history of technology
use in schools.
31. Engaging in community-based
planning and understanding the benefits
of involving community in planning
32. Locating an existing partnership
within a school setting and
understanding the advantages of wellformed partnerships
33. Using the technology planning
process to form school partnerships to
support technology integration
34. Disseminating information on
effective cooperative group processes
that facilitate high-quality technology
planning
35. Locating strategies to market and
report progress on a technology plan
36. Determining essential components
and qualities of a school technology plan
37. Determining strategies and
procedures needed for procuring
technology-based systems including
hardware and software
38. Determining state and local
law/policy for procuring technologies
and accounting for funds
2a, 2b, 2c,
2d, 2e
Leader
Change Leader
1.5
Process Leader
1c
2e
2d, 2e
2d, 2e
1a
2c
1a
4e
1b, 1c
Operations
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Relationship
Development
Leader
Relationship
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.6
1.6
Relationship
Development
Leader
Relationship
Development
Leader
1.6
Operations
Leader
Operations
Leader
Operations
Leader
1.5
Operations
Leader
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Funding models for technology
2. Writing and implementing competitive grants
3. Designing Learning Environments
i. Learning tasks
ii. Configuration
iii. Applications
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 17
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
iv. Assistive/Adaptive Tech
Technology Management Tools and Processes
Purchasing/Procurement
Accounting practices
Unique challenges of planning for technology
Marketing the technology plan
LAN/WAN solutions for student-centered learning
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Candidates will participate in a series of online discussion forums and in-class activities
responding to assigned readings, recommended websites, and critical issues related to the
professional learning and instructional technology. Candidate responses should relate not
only to the question(s), but also to the comments made by classmates and/or instructor.
These responses should clearly demonstrate that candidates have read the required
articles, thoroughly examined recommended websites, and participated fully in course
assignments and exercises. Responses should be relevant to the topic and should serve to
move the discussion forward—not simply agree or disagree with what has already been
stated. Candidates should interact with classmates constructively and respectively,
allowing for everyone to participate. Candidates should follow the rules of netiquette to
be provided in class.
2. After reviewing principles of strategic planning, candidates will graphically represent the
planning process that they would use to produce a K-12 technology plan. The planning
process should include key activities, timeline, persons responsible and a budget needed
to produce the technology plan. Computer-generated graphic representations should be
supported by a 3-5 page text document explaining the process and a spreadsheet
representing the budget. Candidates will work individually to determine their own
planning processes, but will compare their work in class.
3. In small groups, candidates will construct and submit a “vision of learning” appropriate
for three to five-year instructional technology plans. The vision will be three to five
sentences and supporting statements explaining what will be seen They will also write a
three to five page (double spaced) research-based rationale explaining why this particular
vision is being promoted. Vision statements and rationales will be presented to the class.
4. Working individually, candidates will research and compare two wide area network
(WAN) and two local area network (LAN) solutions commonly used in instructional
settings. Students will compare the strengths and weaknesses of the two solutions
(including price and performance) for a specific instructional context. The comparison
will be presented in chart format and will include at least two industry references on each
of the selected technologies.
5. Small groups of candidates will design a classroom learning environment that would best
support the realization of the vision. The classroom design will include hardware,
software, and infrastructure solutions; a plan for classroom management and technical
support; and a budget. The design should be represented using a computerized drawing
program.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 12
of 17
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (20% of grade)
Planning Process (10%)
Vision of Learning (20%)
LAN/WAN solutions (30%)
Learning environment (20%)
A:
B:
C:
F:
92% - 100%
84%-91%
75%-83%
74% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of
investigation associated with college-level studies. Papers should be typewritten, on 8 1/2 x 11 in. paper.
Action research work submitted should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure
accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Written work should be attractive and neat -ESPECIALLY WITH MATERIALS INTENDED FOR STUDENT USE.
ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT:
The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without
giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these
expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”
PROFESSIONALISM: CLASS ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION POLICY:
Attendance is required for each class session, and candidates are expected to be on time. Part of
your success in this class is related to your ability to provide peer reviews and feedback to your
group members regarding group projects. Furthermore, responding effectively and appropriately
to feedback from your peers and the professor is another measure of one’s professionalism. Since
each class meeting represents one week of instruction/learning, failure to attend class will impact
your performance on assignments and final exams. Class discussions, group work, and activities
require that everyone be present. There is no way to “make up” this class. Please be prepared
with all readings completed prior to class. You are expected to ask insightful and pertinent
questions.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Anderson, L.S. (n.d.). The role of the school business manager in technology planning [Online].
Available: http://www.nctp.com/Sch.Bus.Mgr.html
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (1999). Apple K-12 effectiveness reports [Online]. Available:
http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/effect.html
Archer, J. (1998, October 1). The link to higher scores. Education Week on the Web (Special issue:
Technology Counts '98) [Online]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/ets/ets-n.htm
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 13
of 17
Avoca School District #37. (1992, September). Technology for teaching and learning. Wilmette, IL:
Author.
Baker, E.L. (1999). Technology: How do we know it works? [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper5.html
Bellingham (WA) Public Schools. (1997). Bellingham school district technology plan [Online].
Available: http://www.bham.wednet.edu/technology/technology.htm
Big Rapids (MI) Public School District. (n.d.). Technology in education master plan [Online].
Available: http://www.brps.k12.mi.us/cardtech/TECHPLAN.PDF
Cradler, J. (1996). Implementing technology in education: Recent findings from research and evaluation
studies [Online]. Available: http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/recapproach.html
David, J.L. (1994). Realizing the promise of technology: The need for systemic education reform.
Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/david1.html
Eisenberg, M.B., & Johnson, D. (1996). Computer skills for information problem-solving: Learning and
teaching technology in context. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed392463.html
Gaines, C.L., Johnson, W., & King, D.T. (1996, June). Achieving technological equity and equal access
to the learning tools of the 21st century. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 23(11),
74-77. Available online: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A400.cfm
Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a
national strategy. Washington, DC: RAND. Available online:
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR682/contents.html
Goldman, S., Cole, K., & Syer, C. (1999). The technology/content dilemma [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper4.html
Hawkins, J., Panush, E.M., & Spielvogel, R. (1996, December). National study tour of district
technology integration. (Summary report). New York: Center for Children and Technology,
Education Development Center.
Heinecke, W.F., Blasi, L., Milman, N., & Washington, L. (1999). New directions in the evaluation of
the effectiveness of educational technology [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper8.html
Henriquez, A., & Riconscente, M. (1998, July). Rhode Island teachers and technology initiative:
Findings from the pilot implementation year. New York: Center for Children and Technology,
Education Development Center.
Honey, M., Culp, K.M., & Carrigg, F. (1999). Perspectives on technology and education research:
Lessons from the past and present [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper1.html
Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using
educational technology. Washington, DC: Council for Educational Development and Research,
and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available online:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 14
of 17
Kosakowski, J. (1998, August). The benefits of information technology. ERIC Digest [Online].
Available: http://ericir.syr.edu/ithome/digests/edoir9804.html
Krell Institute. (1998). Adventures in supercomputing [Online]. Available: http://www.krellinst.org/AiS/
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis.
Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.
Loudoun County (VA) Public Schools. (1992, June). Technology utilization in Loudoun County Public
Schools, Loudoun County, Virginia: A report 1991-92 [Online]. Available:
http://www.loudoun.k12.va.us/schools/ashburnannex/admin-resources/techplan.html
Lyndes, C. (1995). How to plan and implement a school's successful integration of information
technology [Online]. Available: http://www.cvu.cssd.k12.vt.us/K12TECH/howcover.htm
McKenzie, J. (1995, May). Creating board policies for student use of the Internet. From Now On, 5(7),
1. Available online: http://www.fromnowon.org/fnomay95.html
McNamara, E., Grant, C.M., & Wasser, J.D. (1998, March). Using technology to support systemic
education reform [Hanau model schools partnership project description]. Cambridge, MA:
TERC. Available online (requires Adobe Acrobat software):
http://modelschools.terc.edu/modelschools/TEMPLATE/Publications/PDF/projdes.pdf
Massachusetts Software Council. (1994). The switched-on classroom: A technology planning guide for
public schools in Massachusetts. Boston: Author. Available online:
http://www.swcouncil.org/switch2.stm
Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.),
Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1-21). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz, A.R., & Zorfass, J. (1993,
September). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available online:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/
Melmed, A. (Ed.). (1995, November). The costs and effectiveness of educational technology:
Proceedings of a workshop [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/RAND/Costs/index.html
Michigan Association for Computer-Related Technology Users in Learning. (1997). MACUL grants and
awards [Online]. Available: http://www.macul.org/grants.html
Michigan Department of Education. (1998). Michigan's state technology plan [Online]. Available:
http://www.mde.state.mi.us/tplan/final.shtml
Microsoft in Education. (1996). The technology road map: A comprehensive planning guide to computer
technology in K-12 school districts. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corp.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (1998). Funding resources [Online]. Available:
http://www.mcrel.org/resources/links/techined.asp#funding
Mississippi Council for Education Technology. (1996). Master plan for education technology [Online].
Available: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/oet/pages/t_of_c.html
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 15
of 17
National Center for Supercomputing Applications. (1996). K-12 networking infrastructure guide
recommendations [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/tandl/k-12infra/k-12infra.htm
Newman, D. (1990). Technology’s role in restructuring for collaborative learning (CTE Technical
Report #8). New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (1998) Critical issue: Developing a school or
district technology plan Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te300.htm.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & Illinois State Board of Education. (1995). Learning
through technology: A planning and implementation guide [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/tandl/homepg.htm
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Guiding questions for technology
planning [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm
Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (1998). Closing the equity gap in technology access
and use: A practical guide for K-12 educators [Online]. Available: http://www.netc.org/equity/
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (n.d.). Technology and education reform [Online].
Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/
Office of Educational Technology. (1999). Education Department grant programs [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TOCedgrant.html
Pelavin Research Institute. (1997, November). Investing in school technology: Strategies to meet the
funding challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Technology. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/techinvest/
Quinones, S., & Kirshstein, R. (1998, December). An educator's guide to evaluating the use of
technology in schools and classrooms [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide/
Ramirez, R., & Bell, R. (1994). Byting back: Policies to support the use of technology in education. Oak
Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Regional Technology in Education Consortia. (1997). Guiding questions for technology planning tool
http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm
Robertson, K. (n.d.). Promoting technology: 13 ways to do it [Online]. Available:
http://www.nctp.com/promoting_technology.html
Rosen, L.D., & Weil, M. (1995). Computer availability, computer experience and technophobia among
public school teachers. Computers and Human Behavior, 11, 9-31.
Sanborn, F. (1997). How to choose learning stations and seating for your technology-based classroom
Schaumburg School District #54 (1996, March). Information and communication technologies plan.
Schaumburg, IL: Author.
Schultz, E., (1992, January 8). Learning a hard lesson on the introduction of technology. Education
Week, pp. 18-20.
See, J. (n.d.). Developing effective technology plans [Online]. Available:
http://www.nctp.com/john.see.html
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 16
of 17
Singh, R., & Means, B. (1994). Technology and education reform [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech
Smith, M.S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. In Politics of Education Association yearbook
(pp. 233-267). London: Taylor & Francis.
Society of Research Administrators. (2000). GrantsWeb [Online]. Available:
http://www.srainternational.org/newweb/resourceguide/index.cfm
Stearns, M.S., David, J.L., Hanson, S.G., Ringstaff, C., & Schneider, S.A. (1991, January). CupertinoFremont model technology schools project research findings: Executive summary (Teachercentered model of technology integration: End of year 3). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
The Universal Service Administrative Company (ASAC). (2005). The technology plan shows how
technology will improve education or library services. Available:
http://www.sl.universalservice.org/applicants/techplan.asp.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996a). Application for state grants under the technology literacy
challenge fund [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TLCF/
U.S. Department of Education. (1996b). Resource guide to federal funding for technology in education
[Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/tec-guid.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Technology innovation challenge grants [Online]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/challenge/
Wheelersburg Local School District. (1994, September). Wheelersburg local school district technology
plan. Wheelersburg, OH: Author.
Wiske, M.S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B., Watt, M., &
Williams, K. (1988, March). How technology affects teaching (Technical report prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Graduate School of Education, Educational Technology Center.
Yoder, S.K. (1991, October 21). Readin', writin' and multimedia. The Wall Street Journal, p. R12.
Zaritsky, R., & Zeisler, A. (1997). Building the 21st century school [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/IDT/
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 17
of 17