Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji Athava Acharyay Mahaprabhauji Charitra, 27p, Gujarati
Teachers as Technologists: Professional Development for 27p ...
Transcript of 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
TEACHERS AS TECHNOLOGISTS
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
TEACHERS AS TECHNOLOGISTS
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
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
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,
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
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.