■ POLI CY & LEADERSH I P
BY CHRISTOPHER MOERSCH
Levels of Technology
Implementation (LoTi):
A Framework for Measuring
Classroom Technology Use
Since the introduction of the Apple IIe computer in the early1980s,
theterm“technology” hasrepresenteda broadrangeof interestsandhas
been the subject of numerous interpretations. In school systems nationwide, technologyhas been the focus of curriculumrenewal projects and
school funding debates. It has been the rallying cry for leading many
school districts into the 21st century.
Our fascination with technologystems, in large degree, fromits ambiguitywithinexistingparadigms. Doestechnologyrepresent things, like
computers, modems, pencils, microscopes, andtelevisions; wordsorideas,
like “progress” and“change”; processes, like animal breeding andvoting; or deliverysystems, likeexpert systemsandnovicesystems?Eachperspective on technologyhas its unique attributes andleads the individual
to different conclusions andimplementation strategies.
Attempts in the early 1980s to bring technology into education involved the creation of computer literacy classes at the elementary and
secondarylevels. Fromregion to region, these courses were quite similar
in their offerings—theytaught studentsabout thepartsof thecomputer,
keyboarding fundamentals, wordprocessing, drill-and-practice applications, andintroductoryprogramming. Evenwiththeexponential advances
in electronic technology, their legacycan still befoundtodayin theguise
of integrated learning systems and central word processing and
remediation labs.
As one observes the current uses of computer technologynationwide,
a fewdistinct patterns emerge.
• Staff development opportunities for teachers to explore the potential
of computer technologyare oftentimes insufficient andmisdirected.
• Most computer technologyisusedfor isolatedactivitiesunrelatedtoa
central instructional theme, concept, or topic.
• Theuseof thecomputer isoftenonestepremovedfromtheclassroom
teacher.
40
Le a rning a nd Le a ding Wit h T e c hnology
• Technologyis usedto sustain the existingcurricula rather than serve
as a catalyst for change.
• The majority of district or site technology plans do not establish a
significant link between the need for technology and identifiable
instructional priorities(e.g., emphasizinghigherorderthinkingskills
or restructuring the science andmathematics curriculum). Instead,
theyemphasize a needto meet a vaguelydefinedcomputer/student
ratio or establish districtwide local area networks.
At best, the role of technology has complemented the conventional
instructional curriculumandits corresponding emphasis on expository
teaching, traditional verbal activities, sequential instructional materials,
andevaluation practicescharacterizedbymultiple-choice, short-answer,
andtrue-or-false responses.
When planningstaff development targetingclassroomintegration of
technology(e.g., spreadsheets, graphing, telecommunications), twofundamental assumptions are often made about the educational practitioners attendingsuch sessions:
• Participants are easily able to make connections between the
technologytheyhave available andtheir instructional curricula.
• Participants are ready and willing to initiate changes in their
instructional practices.
Oftentimes, neither assumptionisvalid. Thesestaff development sessions
often leadto nonuse or lowlevels of use of the technologybyclassroom
teachers because the technology-based intervention neither reflects the
instructional level of the teacher (Moersch, 1994) nor addresses fundamental self-efficacyissues.
Self-efficacytheorysuggests that individuals with a lowlevel of selfefficacywill often choose a level of innovation that theybelieve theycan
handle, which mayor maynot be the best or most effective option. Con-
November 1995
© 1998, International Society for Technology in Education,
800.336.5191, cust_svc@ccmail.uoregon.edu, www.iste.org.
Reprinted with permission.
versely, thoseindividualswithhighlevelsof self-efficacyaremost inclined
toaccept change andchoose the best option. Olivier andShapiro(1993)
identifiedself-efficacyas a major predictor of adoption of innovation.
Levels of Technology Implementation
We have attemptedto create a conceptual framework that measures
levels of technology implementation, or LoTi™, so that we can assist
school districts in restructuringtheir staff’s curricula toinclude concept/
process-basedinstruction, authentic uses of technology, andqualitative
assessment. LoTi is alignedconceptuallywith the work of Hall, Loucks,
Rutherford, andNewlove(1975); ThomasandKnezek(1991); andDwyer,
Ringstaff, andSandholtz(1992).
In the LoTi framework, we propose seven discrete implementation
levels teachers can demonstrate, rangingfromNonuse (Level 0) to Refinement (Level 6). As a teacher progresses fromone level tothe next, a
series of changes to the instructional curriculum is observed. The instructional focus shifts from being teacher-centered to being learnercentered. Computer technologyis employedas a tool that supports and
extendsstudents’ understandingof thepertinent concepts, processes, and
themes involvedwhen using databases, telecommunications, multimedia, spreadsheets, andgraphingapplications. Traditional verbal activities
are graduallyreplacedbyauthentic hands-on inquiryrelatedto a problem, issue, or theme. Heavyreliance on textbookandsequential instructional materials is replacedbyuse of extensive anddiversifiedresources
determinedbytheproblemareasunderstudy.Traditional evaluationpractices are supplantedbymultiple assessment strategies that utilize portfolios, open-endedquestions, self-analysis, andpeer review.Adetailed
description of the LoTi framework is given in the Sidebar on page 42.
Implications for District Technology Expansion
AsDavidDwyer(1992) hasnoted, “Theuseoftechnologydoesnotguarantee fundamental change in the teaching-learning process and consequentlyin learning outcomes.” Other variables, including organizational
leadershipandstructure, theteacher’sroleintherestructuringprocess, and
the curriculum itself, impact the entire school restructuring process, includinginstructional usesof technology(Thomas&Knezek, 1991).
As school districts prepare their technologyexpansion plans, we offer
some basic recommendations based on our work with the LoTi framework. District planningfor technologyshould:
• Emphasize staff development because of the incremental andpersonal
natureofinnovationadoptions. Existingallocationsforstaffdevelopment
are insufficient for districtwide changes in teachers’ instructional
curricula tomaximizethecapabilitiesof thenewtechnologies.
• Emphasizefront-endanalysisdirectedat linkingproposedtechnology
expansion with long-range instructional priorities.
• Use technologyto restructure science andmathematics curricula to
reflect Benchmarks for Science Literacy andthe NCTMStandards.
The abilityfor technologyto cut across curriculumbarriers through
the seamless integration of telecommunications, multimedia, and
relatedtechnology-basedtoolshelpsdissolveexistingboundariesthat
define the existingcurricula (Thomas &Knezek, 1991).
© 1998, International Society for Technology in Education,
800.336.5191, cust_svc@ccmail.uoregon.edu, www.iste.org.
Reprinted with permission.
• Incorporate a variety of measures to justify the money spent on
technology from sources such as bond levies, state and federal
Eisenhower allocations, and district funds. Such measures might
includeLoTi, school dropout rates, student attitudesabout school, test
scores, and student achievement in areas seldom assessed by
conventional means. Theseareasmightincludecomputeruse, effective
communication, social awareness and confidence, independence,
problemsolving, andcivic responsibility(Dwyer, 1992).
• Include inservice opportunities for site administrators to develop
annual technology plans consistent with district priorities for
technology implementation and student performance standards.
Researchhasdocumentedthat theactionsandinterestsofthebuilding
principal have made a significant difference between effective and
ineffective implementation of program change (Berman &
McLaughlin, 1977; McLaughlin &Marsh, 1978).
The LoTi framework is currently being field-tested throughout the
UnitedStates. In its current form, the framework can provide a fair approximation of teacher behaviors relatedtotechnologyimplementation.
Documenting such behaviors can aidin designing future interventions
that support the expandeduse of technologyas well as concept/processbasedinstruction andqualitative assessment practices.
■
[Christopher Moersch, National Business Education Alliance,
POBox 61, Corvallis, OR 97339]
November 1995
Le a rning a nd Le a ding Wit h T e c hnology
41
References
Berman, Paul, &McLaughlin, MilbreyWallin. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VIII: Implementing and
sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA:The RandCorporation.
Dwyer, DavidC. (1992). Comments for the national education goals
panel. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow.
Dwyer, DavidC., Ringstaff, Cathy,&Sandholtz, JudithHaymore. (1992).
The evolution of teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices in highaccess-to-technology classrooms, first–fourth year findings. AppleClassrooms of Tomorrow.
Hall, Gene E., Loucks, Susan F., Rutherford, William L., & Newlove,
Beulah, W.(1975). Levelsof useof theinnovation: Aframeworkfor analyzinginnovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56.
McLaughlin, MilbreyWallin, &Marsh, DavidD. (1978). Staff development andschool change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 69–93.
Moersch, Christopher. (1994). Labs for learning: An experientialbased action model. National Business Education Alliance.
Olivier, TerryA., &Shapiro, Faye. (1993). Self-efficacyandcomputers.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 81–85.
Thomas, LajeaneG., &Knezek, Don. (1991). Facilitatingrestructured
learning experiences with technology. The Computing Teacher, 18(6),
49–53.
The LoTi Framework
42
Level
Category
Description
0
Nonuse
Aperceivedlackof access to technology-basedtools or a lackof time to pursue electronic technology
implementation. Existingtechnologyispredominatelytext-based(e.g., dittosheets, chalkboard, overheadprojector).
1
Awareness
The use of computers is generallyone stepremovedfromthe classroomteacher (e.g., integrated
learningsystemlabs, special computer-basedpullout programs, computer literacyclasses, central
wordprocessinglabs). Computer-basedapplications have little or no relevance to the individual
teacher’s instructional program.
2
Exploration
Technology-basedtools serve as a supplement to existinginstructional program(e.g., tutorials, educational games, simulations). The electronic technologyis employedeither as extension activities or
as enrichment exercises to the instructional program.
3
Infusion
Technology-basedtools, includingdatabases, spreadsheets, graphingpackages, probes, calculators,
multimediaapplications, desktoppublishingapplications, andtelecommunicationsapplications, augment isolatedinstructional events (e.g., a science-kit experiment usingspreadsheets/graphs to analyze results or a telecommunications activityinvolvingdata-sharingamongschools).
4
Integration
Technology-basedtools are integratedin a manner that provides a rich context for students’ understandingof the pertinent concepts, themes, andprocesses. Technology(e.g., multimedia, telecommunications, databases, spreadsheets, wordprocessors) is perceivedas a tool to identifyandsolve
authentic problems relatingto an overall theme/concept.
5
Expansion
Technologyaccess is extendedbeyondthe classroom. Classroomteachers activelyelicit technology
applicationsandnetworkingfrombusinessenterprises, governmental agencies(e.g., contactingNASA
to establish a linkto an orbitingspace shuttle via the Internet), research institutions, anduniversities to expandstudent experiences directedat problemsolving, issues resolution, andstudent activismsurroundinga major theme/concept.
6
Refinement
Technologyis perceivedas a process, product (e.g., invention, patent, newsoftware design), andtool
to helpstudents solve authentic problems relatedto an identifiedreal-worldproblemor issue. Technology, inthiscontext, providesa seamlessmediumfor informationqueries, problemsolving, and/or
product development. Students have readyaccess to anda complete understandingof a vast arrayof
technology-basedtools.
Le a rning a nd Le a ding Wit h T e c hnology
November 1995
© 1998, International Society for Technology in Education,
800.336.5191, cust_svc@ccmail.uoregon.edu, www.iste.org.
Reprinted with permission.