teachers as technologists: professional development for 27p

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 429 581 IR 019 542

AUTHOR Thurlow, John P.TITLE Teachers as Technologists: Professional Development for

Technology Integration.PUB DATE 1999-05-04NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

International Reading Association (44th, San Diego, CA, May2-7, 1999).

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Computer Literacy; *Computer Uses in Education; Elementary

Secondary Education; *Faculty Development; InstructionalDesign; *Mentors; Models; Teaching Methods; *Training

IDENTIFIERS *Technology Integration

ABSTRACTThis paper presents a model for professional development

that is site-based and utilizes a Teacher-Mentor approach for technologytraining. To guide the development of such models for schools, the paperdiscusses the following principles: (1) the Teachers Computer Ability Profile(TCAP), a straightforward instrument teachers can use to self-assess theirskills in seven areas of technology use; (2) the Individualized ProfessionalDevelopment Plan;(3) benefits of the Teacher-Mentor Model; (4) sevenessential elements of a comprehensive teacher-mentor professional developmentmodel; (5) student involvement in the school's model; (6) development of atraining curriculum; and (7) evaluation methods. Included at the end of thepaper are: a diagram of the Professional Development Model, Teachers ComputerAbility Profile, and online resources for technology planners. (AEF)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of EducaVonal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

TEACHERS AS TECHNOLOGISTS

Professional Development for Technology Integration

John P. ThurlowSouth Portland Public Schools

South Portland, Maine

International Reading Association

Presented May 4, 1999

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

J.P. Thurlow

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

2


Professional Development for Technology Integration

John P. ThurlowSouth Portland Public Schools

South Portland, Maine

THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TECHNOLOGY

Louis Gerstner, CEO of IBM stated, "Information technologyis the force that revolutionizes business, streamlines governmentand enables instant communications and the exchange ofinformation among people and institutions around the world. Iftechnology becomes widely infused in schools, it seemsprobable that it can play analogous roles in education" (RAND,1998). Technology can be the revolutionary force that instigatesand supports reform by teachers and administrators at the schoollevel (RAND, 1998). The one critical impediment to that goal,however, is the professional development of teachers as users oftechnology who effectively integrate information technology withthe best of pedagogy (Papert, 1993).

Federal legislation in recent years has emphasized theimportance of educational technology and leaders have calledfor action to ensure the access of all schools to the nationalinformation infrastructure (RAND, 1998). This has resulted insignificant appropriations for technology and major changesassodated with the growth of information technology are clearlyunder way in our schools. Despite over a decade of investment

3

in educational hardware and software, however, relatively few ofthe nation's 2.8 million teachers use technology in their teaching(U.S Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 1995).

At the same time much of America is in the midst ofsignfficant efforts to reform and improve the performance of itseducational system. The educational standards movement hasspread throughout the country as state governments andcommunities embrace higher standards and improved practicesthat enable virtually all students to meet the demands of aninformation-based world. Technology education is a criticalcomponent of these reform efforts but in order to achieve thegoals of integrating technology and learning, teachers must beequipped with the skills to use the tools and integrate them withinstruction. America's schoolteachers are not prepared to do so.

A recent survey by the U. S. Department of Educationdemonstrates the dismal state of affairs relative to teacher trainingin technology integration. The study reported that only 20percent of teachers reported feeling very well prepared tointegrate educational technology into classroom instruction(1998). A study by Knirk in 1989 found that less than one-thirdof all K-12 teachers had even ten hours of computer training, andalmost two-thirds of the states were fmancially unable to providefor additional training and support of educational computing(Knirk, 1989). A national survey by Educational Testing Servicesix years later found similar results reporting that only 15 percentof teachers nationwide had received at least nine hours oftraining in educational technology (Coley, 1997). That is arelative decline at a time when technology investments haveincreased dramatically (U.S Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment, 1995). Furthermore, most schools spend less than15 percent of their technology budgets on training, only half ofthe federally recommended amount. In 18 states teachereducation students are not required to take courses in

2

educational technology to obtain a teaching license (Coley, 1997).There is an urgent need for professional development

programs directed towards helping teachers adjust to the newchallenges presented by technology. If technology integrationprograms are to succeed, teachers must be provided high qualitytraining that gives them the confidence and skills to usetechnology effectively (Houghton, 1997). The importance ofsuch training has been documented by empirical researchconducted in California schools that were the redpients oftechnology grants. The study concluded that 30 percent of anyeducational technology budget should be earmarked for teacherdevelopment with follow up support and assistance (Coley,1997).

Technology has the potential of positively impacting allcontent areas, particularly mathematics where abundantapplications are available to support classroom instruction.Research shows that helping teachers learn how to integratetechnology into their math curriculum is a critical factor for thesuccessful implementation of technology in schools (U.SCongressional Office of Technology Assessment, 1995).

The need for reform in mathematics education has also beenwell established (NCTM, 1989; National Research Council, 1989).States across the nation are implementing learning standardswhich call for higher expectations for student performance inmathematics. Furthermore, studies have pointed to the need forgreater attention to math concepts and application of thoseconcepts to real-world problems. Computation and rotememorization of facts and algorithms have predominated mathinstruction for decades. An integrated approach which focuseson problem solving in real-world contexts has been proven moreeffective than the traditional drill and practice methodology of thepast (NCTM, 1989). Technology integration supports theseapproaches.

3

Concurrent with the demands being placed on mathematicseducators is the goal of integrating technology in every aspect ofeducation. Computers are now being viewed as tools childrenshould use as resources for information, communications andself-directed learning. There are, however, very few examples ofschools with large numbers of classrooms incorporatingtechnology-supported constructivist teaching and learningapproaches (Means & Olson, 1995).

Models of excellence for teacher training in technology arealso difficult to locate in the literature. Empirical studies need tobe undertaken to assess the impact of technology integration onstudent achievement. New research designs, therefore, areneeded to demonstrate the effectiveness of such programs and toalert policy makers of the need to equip teachers with the skillsthey need to integrate technology effectively.

Will effective teacher training in the use of technologyintegration practices result in significantly positive gains instudent achievement? That will depend upon the nature of thetraining models. Many in-service models focus on equippingteachers with basic skills using hardware and productivitysoftware rather than curriculum-based applications and strategiesfor integrating them in their instructional activities (Benson, 1997).Effective professional development provides a balancedapproach which equips teachers with basic technical abilities aswell as strategies for curriculum integration and management.This requires thoughtful planning and attention to teachers'needs because they are being asked to engage in the process ofacquiring technical skills unlike any they've been asked to learnbefore. This can be overwhelming for many teachers.

4

A MODEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

What follows is a model for professional development that issite-based and utilizes a Teacher-Mentor approach fortechnology training. The principles outlined below can guide thedevelopment of models for most schools.

TEACHERS COMPUTER ABILITY PROFILE

Teachers, like their students, have diverse backgrounds inusing technology. The first step in developing an in-serviceprogram is to assess teachers' prior knowledge and technicalabilities. There are many surveys available for this purpose. TheTeachers Computer Ability Profile (TCAP) is a straightforwardinstrument teachers can use to self-assess their skills in sevenareas of technology use; 1) basic computer skills, 2) managingfiles, 3) word processing, 4) use of productivity software, 5) useof multimedia and educational software, 6) knowledge ofnetworking and the Internet and, 7) curriculum integrationpractices (Thurlow, 1999). Each category details competencyrubrics for each of five general skill levels (non-user, novice,basic, advanced and expert). Teachers can self-administer theinstrument in five minutes to determine their Profile Score andlevel of proficiency. The TCAP includes an open-ended questionto ascertain teachers' interest in developing their skills throughprofessional development. This information can be used todevelop teachers' Individualized Professional DevelopmentPlans. It is important to consider teachers' interests in this regardto prevent the practice of forced training for those who are notyet comfortable with technology.

Administration of the TCAP will produce groupings ofteachers in each cif the five ability levels mentioned above. From

5

7

those groups administrators or technology coordinators canfacilitate training for teachers in those groups who are at similarlevels of ability. This model acknowledges that the acquisition oftechnical skills requires mastery of certain prerequisite skills.Teachers who are non-users, novices or basic users will needinstruction in a hierarchy of skills before they can become trainedin more advanced applications and curriculum integrationstrategies.

INDIVIDUALIZED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

While the TCAP provides a general level of proficiency withwhich to group teachers for professional development activities,the design of a staff development plan should be individualized.It is likely that many teachers will be at similar levels in theirexperience, competence and comfort, so designing courses forteacher groups is made easier through classification by the TCAP.But like their students, teachers learn at different rates and investdifferently in their own learning. Those differences areacknowledged through the Individualized ProfessionalDevelopment Plan which allows the training to be customizedand self-paced. Teachers who move rapidly through thesequence of skills presented in training groups can be reassessedand classified at a higher level of proficiency where new trainingopportunities await them.

TEE TEACHER-MENTOR MODEL

How can staff development for technology be individualizedwhen there are so many teachers to train and so many skills toacquire? That question requires a professional developmentparadigm that utilizes Teacher-Mentors at individual buildings toprovide group and individual training.

6

Teacher mentoring has long been recognized as an effectivemodel for initiating classroom change (Joyce & Showers, 1988,cited in Fleming). But despite the demonstrated effectiveness ofthe model it has not been widely used. A recent national surveyindicated that only 19 percent of the teacher respondents hadbeen mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship. Ofthose who were mentored at least once a week, 70 percentreported that it improved their teaching significantly.Furthermore, teachers surveyed perceived relatively strongcollegial support for their work; 63 percent strongly agreed thatother teachers shared ideas with them that were helpful in theirteaching (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998).

Teachers are often the best providers of in-serviceexperiences for several reasons. First, teachers at the buildinglevel generally have a close working relationship with theircolleagues. Secondly, personal relationships develop at theschool level and extend beyond the school day where informalsupport can occur. Teachers are also collaborating more in teamteaching situations where they plan curriculum together. Also,more time can be devoted to in-service at the school level.Finally, with the rapid appearance of computers in daily life, it islikely that most schools will have at least one teacher who is wellversed in technology and could provide in-service at the buildinglevel as a mentor. These factors all support the need fortechnology in-service to be accomplished primarily at thebuilding level.

Another benefit of the teacher-mentor model is that allteachers are potential mentors. Using the TCAP instrument,teachers who are identified as Level 2 Novices by the TCAP, forexample, can be instructed by willing Teacher-Mentors who areat Levels 4 or 5. As staff development opportunities proceed,teachers are reassessed and reclassified using the TCAP or othermeasures based on their newly acquired skills. This will result in

7

an ever-increasing pool of Teacher-Mentors as more and moreteachers become better trained.

An additional benefit of the model is that the mentorsthemselves will refine their own skills and have greater retentionas they apply them when teaching their colleagues (Figure 1,National Testing Laboratories).

Figure 1

LearningPyramid Average

RetentionRate

Lecture 5%

Reading 19%

Audio-visual 20%

Demonstration 30%

Discussion 50%

Practice Doingby 75%

Teach Others 90%Immediate Use of Learning

Source: National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine

We know from research on adult learning that educatorshave varying needs, learn in different ways, and bring differentskills and experiences to the learning situation, factors not unlikethose of their students. As with the instriiction of children,professional development activities must be tailored to fit theparticipants. Who better to plan for such diversity than those

8

who do it every day in their own classrooms? Incorporatingstrategies geared toward adult learners, such as observing,mentoring, coaching, and reflecting enhances the professionaldevelopment experience (Fleming, 1999).

The Teacher-Mentor model provides an additionaladvantage in that teachers are likely to generate curriculum ideasas they learn together under the leadership of their mentor. Thiswill be particularly true if the mentor is part of a teaching teamthat ordinarily plans units of instruction collaboratively.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL

Many teachers are just as intrigued with technology as theirstudents are and many are wining to make an investment in theirown development. They recognize that technology is changingrapidly and its movement into the classroom is inevitable. Butthe greatest impediment to learning both the technical skills andpedagogical strategies is time. It takes an enormous amount oftime to learn and practice the intricacies of computers which havebecome so advanced in recent years. If teachers are going tomake a commitment to technology integration then districts needto provide incentives and resources for them to develop theirskills as well as rewards for the tremendous effort required todevelop them. There are seven essential elements of acomprehensive teacher-mentor professional developmentmodel:

' Release time during the school year or paid trainingduring vacations or the summer to train.

' Access to hardware and software for practicing skills,including loans of equipment for use at home and accessto labs or workstations.

9

1 1

Financial incentives and rewards including trainingstipends and course reimbursement.

*Generous continuing education credits and certificationendorsements.

'Hardware and software for their classrooms once they aretrained so they can continually apply their skills andintegration strategies.

'Accessible technical support for troubleshooting.

*Follow-up training sessions and ongoing mentor support.

Mentors must also be well compensated and receive similarincentives and rewards as their colleagues who are in training.This model can be very cost-effective since a great deal ofinformal training will occur throughout the school year as part ofthe regular school day as mentors and teachers encounter newchallenges. Consider the costs involved if technology trainerswere employed to meet the same training challenges.

STUDENT INVOLVEMENT

A final component of the Teacher-Mentor model involvesstudents in the pmcess. Many children are so well-versed in theuse of computers that they could be classified as "experts" usingcriteria from the TCAP. Mentors and teachers in training can takeadvantage of students' skills and willingness to share theirknowledge by inviting them into the process. Furthermore, it isimportant to ensure that teacher training is field-based; that is,teachers should have many opportunities to apply their skillsdirectly with students during the training sessions. The nature of

10

12

student involvement in the school's model will depend on manyfactors including the students' maturity levels and competencies.Those details are best decided at the site, but students shouldplay a part of any model.

CURRICULUM

Development of a training curriculum is an essential task forlocal site managers to undertake. The Teachers Computer AbilityProfile provides general direction for a training curriculum, but aswith other aspects of the design the specific training goals andobjectives are best developed on-site. Factors such as availablehardware and software resources, district curriculum standards,existing technology plans and mentor expertise will affect thenature of the curricuhrm that is developed. The trainingcurriculum should be flexible to accommodate individualteacher's Professional Development Plans.

EVALUATION

A plan for conducting formative and sumrnative evaluationsis recommended for schools to document the success of theirprofessional development activities. The nature of the evaluationmethods is best determined on-site but should include teacherand mentor feedback, ethnographic data from observations ofclassroom instruction, and data relative to student outcomes.

11

1 3

SUMMARY

There is a significant need for effective professionaldevelopment of teachers as technology users. A model for staffdevelopment has been presented which is site-based,individualized, utilizes Teacher-Mentors to train and inspire theircolleagues, offers incentives and rewards, and includes studentsin the process. Suggestions for developing local trainingcurriculum and program evaluation tools are included. Theprinciples of the model can be incorporated into most schools'professional development programs for techilology.

12

1 4


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

AssessTeachers'Abilities

Plan ForProfessionalDevelopment

ProvideProfessionalDevelopment

FurnishNecessaryResources

Teachers Individualized On-Site GroupComputer Professional Instruction Release Time

Ability Development Plan By MentorsProfile (at TCAP Levels) Paid Summer

Training

School or Individual Access toDistrict instruction By Hardware and

Training Curriculum Teacher- SoftwareMentors

Equipment Loansfor Use at HomeTraining

ExperiencesIn the

Classroom

Financial IncentivesTraining Stipends

Continuing

JOHN P. THURLOWStudent

involvement InEducation Credits

SCARBOROUGH, MAINE TeacherDevelopment

CertificationEndorsements

Hardware andSoftware Additionsto the Classroom

Technical Support

Follow-up Training

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Ongoing MentorSupport

ProgramEvaluation

1 5

REFERENCES

Benson, D. (1997). Technology Training: Meeting Teacheis' Changing Needs.Principal v76 (3) pp. 17-19.

Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., and Engel, P. (1997). Computers and Classrooms: The Status

of Technology in U. S. Schools. This report was published by the ETS Policy

Information Center, Princeton, NJ.

Fleming, D. S. (1999). New Directions in Professional Development.

WWW: http://carei.coled.unm.edu/ResearchPractice/v4n1/NDiPD.htm1

Gerstner, Louis. Chief Executive Officer of IBM. (1998). Quoted in RAND

Publications. Available: http://www.rand.org/publications/ MR/MR682/ [1999,

April 3].

Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1998). Fostering the Use of Educational Technology:

Elements of a National Strategy. RAND Publications. Available:

http://www.rand.org/publications/ MR/MR6782/ [1999, April 3].

Houghton, Mary. (1997). State Strategies for Incorporating Technology into

Education. Report to the National Governor's Association, Washington, DC.

Knirk, F. (1989). Reactive and Proactive Graduate Program Development: Trends

Affecting Instructional Development Programs in 2001. Address to the annual

conference of Professors of Instructional Design and Technology, Shawnee

Bluffs, Indiana, May 19-21, 1989.

1 3

16

Means & Olson. (1995) Special Issue on Educational Technologies: Current Trendsand Future Directions. Software Publishers Association.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation

Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA:

National Research Council (1989). Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on theFuture of Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Testing Laboratories. The Learning Pyramid. Cited in Fleming, D. S. (1999).New Directions in Professional Development. WWW: http://carei.coled.unm.

edu/ResearchPractice/v4n1/NDiPD.html

Papert, Seymour. (1993). The Children's Machine. New York, NY:Perseus Books, L.L.C.

Thurlow, J. (1999) Teachers Computer Ability Profile. Unpublished survey

instrument for assessing technology staff development needs. Paperpresented at the International Reading Association Conference, San Diego,May 4, 1999.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1998).

Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training. FRSS 65,1998.

14

17

[T

EA

CH

ER

S C

OM

PUT

ER

AB

ILIT

Y P

RO

FIL

E

Ple

ase

read

eac

hP

lace

the

num

ber

the

num

bers

in a

llY

ou m

ay u

se .5

to

0 JO

HN

P. T

HU

RL

OW

SCA

RB

OR

OU

GH

, MA

INE

desc

riptio

n to

ass

ess

your

cur

rent

abi

lity

usin

g co

mpu

ters

.of

the

leve

l for

eac

h ca

tego

ry in

the

box

on th

e le

ft. T

hen

add

seve

n bo

xes

and

calc

ulat

e th

e P

rofil

e S

core

on

the

last

pag

e.pl

ace

your

self

betw

een

two

leve

ls.

BA

SIC

CO

MP

UT

ER

SK

ILLS

1

LEV

EL

LEV

EL

1LE

VE

L 2

LEV

EL

3LE

VE

L 4

LEV

EL

5

Do

not u

se a

com

pute

r.H

ave

limite

d ex

perie

nce

with

a c

ompu

ter.

Can

run

som

e ba

sic

prog

ram

s.

Com

pute

r ha

s Itt

tle e

ffect

on w

ork

or fa

mily

life

.

Use

the

com

pute

r fo

rba

sic

task

s su

ch a

sw

ord

proc

essi

ng.

Can

sav

e, o

pen

and

prin

tfil

es.

Abl

e to

use

CD

-RO

M a

ndba

sic

Inte

rnet

bro

wse

rs.

Can

set

-up

a co

mpu

ter,

load

sof

twar

e an

d us

em

any

prog

ram

s.

Can

use

mos

t fea

ture

s of

the

com

pute

r's o

pera

ting

syst

em.

Can

teac

h or

hel

p ot

hers

use

thei

r co

mpu

ter.

Adv

ance

d an

d fr

eque

ntus

er.

Can

run

mul

tiple

pro

g-ra

ms,

cus

tom

ize

the

inte

rfac

e, a

nd u

sead

vanc

ed fe

atur

es o

f the

oper

atin

g sy

stem

and

man

y ap

plic

atio

ns.

MA

NA

GIN

G C

OM

PU

TE

R F

ILE

S

LEV

EL

LEV

EL

1LE

VE

L 2

LEV

EL

3LE

VE

L 4

LEV

EL

5

Do

not k

now

how

toC

an c

reat

e an

d sa

veC

an c

reat

e an

d sa

veH

ave

an o

rgan

ized

filin

gC

an m

anag

e fil

es a

t an

crea

te o

r sa

ve fi

les

onth

e co

mpu

ter.

som

e fil

es.

files

and

und

erst

and

how

the

file

savi

ng d

irect

ory

syst

em fo

r fil

es.

adva

nced

leve

l.

Uns

ure

whe

re th

e fil

esw

orks

.C

an r

etrie

ve fi

les

quic

kly.

Can

bac

k up

file

s us

ing

are

save

d or

how

toK

now

how

to b

ack

upso

ftwar

e ap

plic

atio

ns.

retr

ieve

them

.C

an s

ave

to a

har

d dr

ive

or a

flop

py d

isk

or o

ther

files

.C

an tr

ansf

er &

tran

slat

em

edia

.C

an te

ach

othe

rs h

ow to

effe

ctiv

ely

man

age

files

.fil

es b

etw

een

plat

form

san

d ov

er a

net

wor

k.

19

2

US

ING

WO

RD

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G S

OF

TW

AR

E

LEV

EL

1LE

VE

L 2

LEV

EL

3LE

VE

L 4

LEV

EL

5

Do

not k

now

how

toC

an u

se a

wor

dU

se a

wor

d pr

oces

sor

Use

wor

d pr

oces

sing

Adv

ance

d us

er o

f wor

d

wor

d pr

oces

s.pr

oces

sor

to c

ompo

seba

sic

docu

men

ts.

freq

uent

ly.

freq

uent

ly in

sch

ool a

ndho

me.

proc

essi

ng s

oftw

are.

Can

use

wor

d pr

oces

sing

Can

inte

grat

e w

ord

Can

mod

ify d

ocum

ents

form

attin

g fe

atur

es s

uch

Kno

w a

dvan

ced

feat

ures

proc

essi

ng in

to o

ther

and

use

agai

n.as

font

s an

d st

yles

.of

wor

d pr

oces

sing

prog

ram

s.ap

plic

atio

ns.

Can

sav

e fil

es.

Can

use

bas

ic s

oftw

are

Can

teac

h ot

hers

how

to

tool

s su

ch a

s sp

ell-

Can

use

wor

d pr

oces

sing

use

wor

d pr

oces

sing

chec

king

.fo

r a

varie

ty o

f doc

umen

tty

pes.

appl

icat

ions

to im

prov

ew

ritte

n co

mm

unic

atio

ns.

US

E O

F O

TH

ER

SO

FT

WA

RE

Gra

phic

sS

prea

dshe

etD

atab

ase

Pre

sent

atio

n S

oftw

are

LEV

EL

1

Do

not k

now

how

to u

segr

aphi

cs, s

prea

dshe

ets,

data

base

or

pres

enta

tion

prog

ram

s. 20

LEV

EL

2

Hav

e so

me

very

lim

ited

expe

rienc

e us

ing

one

orm

ore

of th

ese

appl

icat

ions

.

LEV

EL

3

Can

use

one

or

mor

e of

thes

e ap

plic

atio

ns a

t aba

sic

leve

l.

Can

cre

ate

files

and

use

basi

c fe

atur

es.

LEV

EL

4

Can

use

all

of th

ese

appl

icat

ions

at a

bas

icle

vel.

Use

one

or

mor

e fa

irly

freq

uent

ly.

Can

teac

h ot

hers

bas

icfe

atur

es o

f eac

h on

e.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

LEV

EL

5

Adv

ance

d us

er o

f tw

o or

mor

e of

the

appl

icat

ions

.

Can

inte

grat

e th

ese

appl

icat

ions

to c

reat

edy

nam

ic fi

les.

Can

teac

h ot

hers

how

tous

e th

ese

appl

icat

ions

for

a va

riety

of p

urpo

ses.

21

US

E O

F M

ULT

IME

DIA

CD

-RO

M A

ND

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

SO

FT

WA

RE

LEV

EL

1LE

VE

L 2

LEV

EL

3LE

VE

L 4

LEV

EL

5

No

expe

rienc

e w

ith th

ese

Hav

e so

me

very

lim

ited

Bas

ic s

kills

in th

e us

e of

Fre

quen

t use

r of

mul

ti-A

dvan

ced

user

of m

ulti-

type

s of

pro

gram

s.ex

perie

nce

with

this

type

CD

-RO

M p

rogr

ams

orm

edia

pro

gram

s on

CD

-m

edia

.of

sof

twar

e.ot

her

educ

atio

nal s

oft-

war

e.R

OM

.F

requ

ent u

ser

of m

ulti-

Can

use

CD

-RO

M p

rod-

Effe

ctiv

e us

er o

f the

sem

edia

at h

ome

or in

the

ucts

to a

lim

ited

degr

ee.

Abl

e to

inst

all C

D-R

OM

prog

ram

s an

d cu

stom

ize

them

.

appl

icat

ions

in th

e cl

ass-

room

.

Can

teac

h ot

hers

to u

seth

ese

prog

ram

s.

clas

sroo

m.

Can

inte

grat

e th

e us

e of

mul

timed

ia fo

r in

stru

c-tio

n.

US

E O

F T

HE

INT

ER

NE

TE

-mai

lW

orld

Wid

e W

ebN

ewsg

roup

s

LEV

EL

3

LEV

EL

1

No

expe

rienc

e w

ith th

eIn

tern

et.

22

LEV

EL

2

Hav

e so

me

very

lim

ited

expe

rienc

e w

ith th

eIn

tern

et.

Hav

e a

basi

c un

der-

stan

ding

of h

ow th

eIn

tern

et w

orks

.

Hav

e se

en e

xam

ples

of

web

site

s an

d e-

mai

l.

LEV

EL

3

Hav

e ac

cess

to a

nIn

tern

et c

onne

ctio

n.

Use

e-m

ail.

Can

nav

igat

e th

e W

orld

Wid

e W

eb w

ith a

bro

wse

r.

Can

use

bas

ic s

ervi

ces

ofa

netw

ork

prov

ider

suc

has

AO

L.

LEV

EL

4

Fre

quen

t use

r of

e-m

ail,

the

Wor

ld W

ide

Web

and

othe

r In

tern

et s

ervi

ces.

Can

sea

rch

the

Inte

rnet

and

acce

ss s

ites

for

info

rmat

ion.

Can

teac

h ot

hers

bas

icte

leco

mm

unic

atio

nssk

ills.

LEV

EL

5

Adv

ance

d an

d fr

eque

ntus

er o

f the

Inte

rnet

.

Can

loca

te, d

ownl

oad

and

inst

all s

oftw

are

from

the

Inte

rnet

.

Can

des

ign

and

publ

ish

aw

eb s

ite.

Par

ticip

ates

in o

n-lin

efo

rum

s, n

ewsg

roup

s.

23

CU

RR

ICU

LUM

INT

EG

RA

TIO

N O

F C

OM

PU

TE

R T

EC

HN

OLO

GY

LEV

EL

Spe

cial

Inst

ruct

ions

for

teac

hers

with

lim

ited

or n

o ac

cess

to h

ardw

are

and

softw

are:

ple

ase

resp

ond

to th

is c

ateg

ory

by in

dica

ting

wha

t you

wou

ld d

o if

you

had

adeq

uate

res

ourc

es.

LEV

EL

1

Do

not u

se c

ompu

ters

in th

e cl

assr

oom

.

LEV

EL

2

Man

age

the

use

ofco

mpu

ters

in th

ecl

assr

oom

but

do

not

inte

grat

e th

em.

Stu

dent

s us

e co

mpu

ters

inde

pend

ently

with

out

muc

h gu

idan

ce.

LEV

EL

3LE

VE

L 4

Use

com

pute

rs in

the

clas

sroo

m fo

r va

rious

task

s an

d en

richm

ent.

Hav

e ba

sic

know

ledg

e of

and

use

vario

used

ucat

iona

l pro

gram

s.

Tea

ch b

asic

com

pute

rsk

ills

to s

tude

nts.

Inte

grat

e us

e of

the

com

pute

r in

to s

ome

cont

ent a

reas

.

Kno

w a

nd u

se m

any

educ

atio

nal p

rogr

ams.

Pro

vide

stu

dent

s w

ithm

ore

adva

nced

ski

lls.

Use

the

Inte

rnet

and

mul

timed

ia a

pplic

atio

nsto

som

e de

gree

.

LEV

EL

5

Ful

ly in

tegr

ate

com

p-ut

ers

in th

e cl

assr

oom

.

Tea

ch s

tude

nts

adva

nc-

ed s

kills

.

Can

teac

h ot

hers

how

toin

tegr

ate

com

pute

rs in

the

clas

sroo

m.

Can

eva

luat

e so

ftwar

efo

r so

und

peda

gogi

cal

use.

TO

TA

L A

LL 7

BO

XE

SD

IVID

E B

Y 7

PR

OF

ILE

SC

OR

ER

ound

to W

hole

Num

ber

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

(see

cha

rt o

n tig

ht)

TE

AC

HE

R D

EV

EL

OPM

EN

T I

NT

ER

EST

Ple

ase

desc

ribe

your

inte

rest

In p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

in te

chno

logy

.

24

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

S

1N

on-u

ser

2N

ovic

e3

Bas

ic4

Adv

ance

d5

Exp

ert

Ca.

25

ONLINE RESOURCES FOR TECHNOLOGY PLANNERS

Compiled By John Thurlow

The links below can be accessed at: http://home.mainesr.com/sm1c/resources.html

The RAND Report on Technology and Teacher Professional Development

http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/RAND/Teacher.html

Project Constellation at Rice University

http://cherokee.cs.rice.edu/constellation/

The Electronic Community of Teachers

http://ecotrice.edu/index.html

EdResources (commercial site)

http://www.edresources.com/spclprog/prodev/index.htm

Curriculum Technology Educators: Online Technology Survey by Suzanne Sierrahttp://www.cte-inc.com/TOTusesurvey.html

Professional Development for Technology Integrationhttp://www.ac.wwu.edu/-kenr/TCsite/plan.html#sec3

Technology Needs Assessment Survey

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide/appc-5.htrn1

Cherry Creek School District Staff Development Model

http://www.nsba.org/itte/cherry.html

2 6

The Role of Online Communications in Schools: A National Study

http://www.cast.org/publications/stsstudy/

New Developments in Staff Development by Douglas S. Fleming

http://carei.co1ed.umn.edu/ResearchPractice/v4n1/NDiPD.html

National Staff Development Council: Standards for Staff Development

http://www.nsdc.org/list.html

21st Century Teachers Network

http://www.21ct.org/

Technology Planning to Support Education Reform Information and resources to support

the integration of technology into State Planning for Educational Reform under Goals 2000

http://www.fwl.org/techpolicy/g2guide.html

Ed Min Open Systems

http://www.edmin.com/toolbox.html#tnas

Maturity Model Benchmarks Survey version 2.5

http://www.edmin.com/mmbs.html

Hardware Inventory Surveys version 2.2

http://www.edmin.com/his.html

Technology Needs Assessment Survey version. 2.3

http://www.edmin.com/toolbox.html#tnas

27

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

ERICfeA- 911

Title: I.ec,c1Aers A-' C 01 66 ts+ 9ro fess I en a ye topnnen+- -Coy

'EEO\ vol 0,5y t 4- jrcch Crle)

Author(s): Jo hn 12. Thur 1 0/.0Corporate Source: Publication Date:

nActb 19qc)

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the

monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival

media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2A


Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination In microfiche and In electronic media

for ERIC archival collection subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 28 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B

Coe,


Level 2B

Check here for Level 28 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination In microfiche only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproductidn from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signet": J?itivq--n--Sign

please OrganizaftlAcasysevslim of Sou .k).)ern PAcA In t.Ga'', mount

Printed Name/Posltion/Titte___.:

c)()))n P. "Thule-JO WTinhitFgc_-5555 Flo- 217E- .5000ESATAIddCiiveiotki. (Om

Date:

(over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will notannounce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:ERIC/REC2805 E. Tenth StreetSmith Research Center, 150Indiana UniversityBloomington, IN 47408

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

ERIG-PrZENsing-and-Reference-FactlityITCHTWest Street, raTIRR--

-laturefr Maryland-2070746M

-Telephoner-3D --1-07--4icarTollEreei-800-799+742

EAX1-301-453432E3,

VVW1M-httpltdffEric.piccardom

EFF-088 (Rev. '9/97)PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.