BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Ed.D. Program
Instructional Technology - ITEC 9410
Instructional Leadership and Technology Facilitation
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: Jonassen, D. & Howland, J. (2003). Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A
Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Ed.S. or Ed.D. program in Instructional Technology or approval of the
Instructional Technology Department to enroll in this course as an elective course.
This course will assist candidates in connecting their technology facilitation efforts to broader
instructional issues such as academic achievement; best practices; national/state content/
technology literacy standards; socio/economic issues; and private sector interests. The course
will provide case studies of effective integration of technology into other high-profile
instructional initiatives. The need for teachers and other instructional leaders to become
informed advocates of instructional technology initiatives will also be addressed.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
In order to maximize their impact as technology facilitators, candidates must also establish
themselves as “instructional leaders” and “advocates” for instructional technology. They must
well-versed in broader professional efforts related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and
they must learn to integrate technology into the issues of greatest concern at the school, district,
state, and national levels. The purpose of the course is to position candidates to make significant
contributions as technology facilitators, beginning with their doctoral research efforts.
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
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 1
of 14
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.
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
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 2
of 14
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.
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
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 3
of 14
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.
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.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 4
of 14
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 participate in instructional improvement and technology facilitation efforts at
local, state, national, and international levels.
In pursuit of this goal, the learning objectives of this course include (ISTE/NCATE TF II, II, V,
VI):
1. Modeling the creation of developmentally appropriate curriculum units that use
technology (TF II)
2. Modeling methods and strategies for teaching computer/technology concepts and skills
within the context of classroom learning (TF II)
3. Modeling strategies to support the diverse needs of learners including adaptive and
assistive technologies and disseminate information to teachers (TF II)
4. Modeling the use of technology resources reflecting district and state standards (TF II)
5. Creating professional development lessons integrating technology resources that reflect
content standards.
6. Modeling the use of technology resources within the context of learning activities (TF II)
7. Modeling a variety of strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced
environment and support the teachers as they implement the strategies (TF II)
8. Modeling the use of appropriate instructional design principles associated with the
development of technology resources (TFII)
9. Summarizing major research findings and trends related to the use of technology in
education to support integration throughout the curriculum (TF II)
10. Disseminating information regarding curricular methods and strategies that are aligned
with district/region/state/ national content and technology standards (TF III)
11. Summarizing and disseminate major research findings and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support integration throughout the curriculum (TF III)
12. Implementing policies that support district-wide professional growth opportunities for
staff, faculty, and administrators (TF V)
13. Continually evaluating professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the
use of technology in support of student learning and disseminate findings to district
administrators (TF V)
14. Modeling the integration of advanced features of word processing, desktop publishing,
graphics programs, and utilities to demonstrate professional products (TF V)
15. Facilitating activities to help others in locating, selecting, capturing, and integrating video
and digital images, in varying formats for use in presentations, publications and/or other
products (TF V)
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 5
of 14
16. Facilitating the use of specific-purpose electronic devices (such as graphing calculators,
languages translators, scientific probeware, or electronic thesaurus) in content areas (TF
V)
17. Using a variety of distance learning systems to support personal/professional
development (TF V)
18. Applying instructional design principles to demonstrate hypermedia/multimedia products
to support professional development (TF V)
19. Modeling the use of appropriate tools for communicating concepts, conducting research,
and solving problems for an intended audience and purpose (TF V)
20. Setting and manipulating preferences and defaults of operating systems and productivity
tool programs, and troubleshoot problems associated with their operation (TF V)
21. Staying abreast of current telecommunications tools and resources for information
sharing, remote information access, and multimedia/hypermedia publishing in order to
nurture student learning (TF V)
22. Analyzing rules, policies, and procedures to support the legal and ethical use of
technology (TF-VI)
23. Conducting research to determine effective strategies for achieving equitable access to
technology resources for all students and teachers (TF-VI)
24. Staying abreast of current developments to configure computer/technology systems and
related peripherals in laboratory, classroom cluster, and other appropriate instructional
arrangements (TF-VI)
25. Locating and disseminating current research in educational technology (TF-VI)
26. Providing information on the benefits of forming school partnerships to support
technology integration and locate an existing partnership within a school setting (TF-VI)
27. Examining the impact of curriculum activities or performances that meet national, state,
and local technology standards (TF-VI)
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. Modeling the creation of
developmentally appropriate curriculum
units that use technology
2. Modeling methods and strategies for
teaching computer/technology concepts
and skills within the context of
4d
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
3a, 3c, 4e
Distributed
School
Leadership
Roles*
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
PSC/NCATE
Standard
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 6
of 14
classroom learning
Leader
3. Modeling strategies to support the
diverse needs of learners including
adaptive and assistive technologies and
disseminate information to teachers
6a, 6c, 6d
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
3a, 3c, 4e
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
4e, 5f
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
3c
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
4e
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
4. Modeling the use of technology
resources reflecting district and state
standards
5. Creating professional development
lessons integrating technology resources
that reflect content standards.
6. Modeling the use of technology
resources within the context of learning
activities
7. Modeling a variety of strategies to
manage student learning in a
technology-enhanced environment and
support the teachers as they implement
the strategies
8. Modeling the use of appropriate
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
4c
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Page 7
of 14
instructional design principles associated
with the development of technology
resources
9. Summarizing major research findings
and trends related to the use of
technology in education to support
integration throughout the curriculum
10. Disseminating information regarding
curricular methods and strategies that
are aligned with district/region/state/
national content and technology
standards
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1a
1a
11. Summarizing and disseminate major
research findings and trends related to
the use of technology in education to
support integration throughout the
curriculum
12. Implementing policies that support
district-wide professional growth
opportunities for staff, faculty, and
administrators
1a
13. Continually evaluating professional
practice to make informed decisions
regarding the use of technology in
support of student learning and
disseminate findings to district
administrators
14. Modeling the integration of
advanced features of word processing,
desktop publishing, graphics programs,
and utilities to demonstrate professional
products
15. Facilitating activities to help others
in locating, selecting, capturing, and
integrating video and digital images, in
varying formats for use in presentations,
publications and/or other products
4b
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
1b
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
Process
Improvement
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
3c
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
3a, 4e
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Page 8
of 14
16. Facilitating the use of specificpurpose electronic devices (such as
graphing calculators, languages
translators, scientific probeware, or
electronic thesaurus) in content areas
17. Using a variety of distance learning
systems to support personal/professional
development
18. Applying instructional design
principles to demonstrate
hypermedia/multimedia products to
support professional development
19. Modeling the use of appropriate
tools for communicating concepts,
conducting research, and solving
problems for an intended audience and
purpose
20. Setting and manipulating preferences
and defaults of operating systems and
productivity tool programs, and
troubleshoot problems associated with
their operation
21. Staying abreast of current
telecommunications tools and resources
for information sharing, remote
information access, and
multimedia/hypermedia publishing in
order to nurture student learning
22. Analyzing rules, policies, and
procedures to support the legal and
ethical use of technology
23. Conducting research to determine
effective strategies for achieving
equitable access to technology resources
for all students and teachers
24. Staying abreast of current
developments to configure
computer/technology systems and
related peripherals in laboratory,
classroom cluster, and other appropriate
instructional arrangements
25. Locating and disseminating current
research in educational technology
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
3a, 4e
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
5f
Learning &
Development
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
3c, 5f
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
3c
Operations
1.5
5f
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1b, 1c
Process
Improvement
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.5
3c, 5f
1c, 5a, 5b
1.2, 1.5
1.2, 1.5
5f
Operations
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
1a
Operation
Leader
Learning &
Development
Leader
1.2, 1.5
Page 9
of 14
26. Providing information on the
benefits of forming school partnerships
to support technology integration and
locate an existing partnership within a
school setting
27. Examining the impact of curriculum
activities or performances that meet
national, state, and local technology
standards
2b, 2d, 2e
Relationship
Leader
1.6
3b, 4b
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Leader
1.2, 1.5, 1.8
Learning &
Development
Leader
*Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement & Georgia Committee on Educational
Leadership Preparation’s Distributed School Leadership Roles
COURSE OUTLINE:
1. Technology and the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts
2. Technology and state legislation
3. The role of national and state technology standards in K-12 programs
4. The relationship between technology and content standards
5. Technology and the private sector
a. Vendors
b. Business partners
c. Work place readiness
d. Foundations
6. Trends and issues in instructional technology
a. 1:1
b. wireless
c. virtual learning
d. e-texts
7. Social, human, ethical, and legal issues related to instructional applications of technology
a. Internet safety
b. copyright
c. acceptable use
8. Technology and the international education community
9. Professional organizations and the process of advocacy
10. Technology and education policy
a. Professional learning
b. Certification
c. Safety
d. Acceptable use
11. Research and the larger context
12. The media and decision-making
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 10
of 14
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. Candidates will locate and post at least one recent media article on technology and
education. The article will be accompanied by a short summary and reflection on the
article (not to exceed one page, double-spaced).
3. Candidates will locate and post one professional or scholarly article on a technologyrelated policy issue in K-12 education. The article will be accompanied by a short
summary and reflection on the article (not to exceed one page, double-spaced).
4. Candidates will post a one-page summary on a professional organization that promotes
professional learning and that advocates for technology issues. Summaries should include
the website of the organization; a list of publications/learning opportunities sponsored by
the organization; membership requirements/fees; and current interests/projects/pursuits
promoted by the organization.
5. Candidates will obtain copies of the technology-related policies that are in place at a
system level at school districts. They will also determine (1) the factors that led to the
proposal of this policy and (2) the process by which that process was drafted, adopted and
implemented. In small groups candidates will compare the policy-adoption processes
and the content/format of the policies. Groups will summarize the policies to the group
and present their findings on adoption procedures, content, and format to the class.
6. Candidates will select and research a current policy and/or implementation issue
surrounding virtual learning for K-12 students and will write a 5-10 page position paper
explaining the issue and posing possible solutions. Topics other than K-12 virtual
learning can be substituted upon the approval of the instructor.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Online and In-class Discussion of Readings (30% of grade)
Media article (5%)
Scholarly article (5%)
Professional organization summary (10%)
Local policy analysis (25%)
Virtual School position paper (25%)
A:
B:
92% - 100%
84%-91%
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 11
of 14
C:
F:
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:
Dickard, N., Honey, M., & Wilhem, A. (2003). Introduction: The challenge of taking edtech to
the next level. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge: Taking edtech to the next
level. Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
EdWeek (2003, May 8). Tech Counts Special Issue. http://www.edweek.com
EdWeek (2001). Tech Counts Special Issue. http://www.edweek.com
EnGauge: A framework for planning and evaluating the systemwide use of educational
technology (2000). Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory,
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/
Fatemi, E. (1999, Sept.). Building the digital curriculum. Ed Week, Tech Counts Special Issue.
http://www.edweek.com
Fitzgerald, S. (2003). Back to the Future: Total cost of ownership and other edtech sustainability
models. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge: Taking edtech to the next level.
Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
Georgia’s Statewide Study of Technology Use. (2002). Study conducted by the Georgia
Department of Education and the National Business in Education Alliance.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1999, May). The evolution of the digital divide: Examining the
relationship of race to internet access and usage over time. Working paper [Online].
Available: http://www.2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/digital.divide.html.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 12
of 14
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility,
and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 12(5), 301-333.
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Norakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using
technology. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Keane, J., Gersick, A. Kim, C. and Honey, M. (2003). Toward a sustainability framework:
Lessons from the literature and the field. In N. Dickard, (Ed.), The Sustainability Challenge:
Taking edtech to the next level. Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives,
handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Lemke, C. (2000). 21st Century Skills. In EnGauge: A framework for planning and evaluating the
systemwide use of educational technology. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm .
Lemke, C. & Coughlin, E (1998). Technology in America’s schools: Seven dimensions for
gauging progress. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=158 .
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., Kottkamp, R. (1999). The West Virginia Story:
Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program.
Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=155
Market Data Retrieval. (2002). “Technology in Education Survey.” As published in EdWeek’s
Tech Counts Issue, May 8, 2003. http://www.edweek.com
Moersch, C. (2001). Using LoTI as a research tool. Leading and Learning with Technology,
29(3), pp. 22-27. http://www.learning-quest.com/publicationsandresearch.html
National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. (1999). Recommendations regarding
research priorities: An advisory report (Reports-Evaluative PPB-1999-6307). Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000. As
published in EdWeek’s Tech Counts Issue, May 8, 2003. http://www.edweek.com .
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools and
classrooms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002018
National Education Technology Plan: Getting America’s students ready for the 21st Century,
(1996). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.airdc.
org/forum/goals.htm
National Leadership Institute Toolkit. (2003). Arlington, VA: State Education Technology
Directors’ Association. http://www.setda.org/nli2002/CD/index.htm
NETS Project, (2000). National educational technology standards for students—Connecting
curriculum and technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-150-2] www.iste.org
NETS Project, (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers—Preparing
teachers to use technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-173-1] www.iste.org
NETS Project, (2000). National educational technology standards for students—Connecting
curriculum and technology, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[ISBN 1-56484-150-2]
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 13
of 14
Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1993, April) Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational
Leadership, 50, 8.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth, and
impact on America's schools: Teaching, learning, and computing 1998 survey, report # 5.
Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information, Technology, and Organizations at
University of California, Irvine and the University of Minnesota.
http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/ .
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of Schools:
A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.html
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1999). Chart A-8: Percent of U. S. households with computers by income, 1984-1998
(Selected years). In Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C.
Available online: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide [Online]. Available:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). Home computers and Internet use in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., and Raack, L. (2000).
Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Naperville, IL:
North Central Educational Laboratory.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002, February). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
Williams, C. (2000). Statistics in brief: Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms,
1994-1999. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
.
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise”
Page 14
of 14