Sample Proposal

In support of the Technology Literacy Challenge, Secretary of Education Riley released the nation’s first national educational technology plan in June of 1996, Getting America’s Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Since that time, tremendous progress has occurred toward achieving those goals. In 1994, only 35 percent of public elementary and secondary schools, and 3 percent of all instructional rooms, had access to the Internet. By the year 2000, however, 95 percent of public schools and 63 percent of instructional rooms have access to the Internet (National Center for Education Studies, 2000).
Since the 1996 release of the nation’s first educational technology plan, interest in increasing the use of technology in education has catapulted to national prominence. This interest has been spurred by the widespread recognition of the transformations technology is having on the American economy, as well as by the potential for technology to transform the teaching and learning experience. A growing sense now exists that there is a critical mass of opportunities to make tremendous strides in improving the nation’s schools.

Evaluating educational technology programs can be a challenging endeavor. As more and more states, districts, and schools develop technology plans to ensure that technology will be used effectively to benefit student learning and achievement, the need to understand technology’s impact on improving student achievement will become even greater. Furthermore, the funding that states and districts receive to implement components of technology plans often requires some type of evaluation. The question thus becomes, how do districts evaluate educational technology programs that vary in the types of students they serve, the curriculum areas in which teachers use technology, and the type of technology itself (U.S. Department of Education, 1998)?

Due in large part to markedly increased federal, state, local and private investment in technology for education, the nation has made tremendous progress toward achieving the 1996 national educational technology goals. These investments in computers and Internet access, professional development, technical support and content have allowed many elementary and secondary school teachers and students to reap the benefits of powerful teaching and learning applications. Given that many schools and classrooms have only recently gained access to technology for teaching and learning, it becomes imperative that not only the nation maintain its commitment to harnessing technology for education but school districts at the local level do so as well.

With sufficient access and support, teachers will be better able to help their students comprehend difficult-to-understand concepts and engage in learning, provide their students with access to information and resources, and better meet their students' individual needs. Every district needs to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them since technology will enhance learning and improve student achievement for all students.

Given the tremendous progress made in integrating technology into teaching and learning and the continued advances in the affordability and capabilities of technology, the need to move beyond the 1996 goals became evident. In the fall of 1999, the U.S. Department of Education undertook a strategic review and revision of the national educational technology plan, in consultation with the full range of stakeholders: educators, researchers, policymakers, students, parents, and higher education, industry and other leaders (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The problems that then arise are “What are the implications of the government directives on local school districts and how does it affect teachers?”

School districts must now systematically plan for technology integration. This is the case whether the funding is from the local school budget, federal monies, grants, funds, or a combination of these. Prior to President Clinton’s initiative, very few districts engaged in methodical planning for technology integration. Lack of planning is a major barrier to technology integration (Lumley, 1991). In the case of schools that did recognize the need to develop some sort of technology plan, oftentimes the educational technology policy focused on collecting the objects of technology (computers, modems, software) rather than outlining goals towards which the district should strive. These schools failed to incorporate technology effectively since there was oftentimes no allocation for staff development or re-evaluation of the original plan and the development team was rarely representative of the school community (Hunt, 1995).

One of the best ways for a school district to develop a successful technology plan is to gain the support of the community, the school board, the teachers, and the administration (Barnett, 2002; Anderson, 1996). The Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District (Texas) created a technology committee consisting of teachers and administrators that used a variety of methods, such as interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, to determine district needs in accordance with the national recommendations. The result was the successful installation of a WAN in the school district and innovative technology integration in the school’s curriculum (Herndon and Yarrow, 1996). Even if an amenable plan is developed, districts must acknowledge and work with the bureaucratic and financial logistics that may pose substantial barriers to its implication (Gormly, 1996). It is important for planners to realize that the mere creation of a plan is not a panacea for technology integration problems. A successful plan must be viewed as a “working technology plan” that allows for revisions and an assessment rubric (Anderson, 1996; Fries and Monahan, 1998; Barnett, 2000).

Teachers have a large role to play in a district technology plan since they (may) participate in the development of the policy and they are the main instruments of its implementation. Teachers will be best able to carry out the goals of a school technology policy if the school is supportive both emotionally and in materials. Teachers’ beliefs about instruction are deeply held; if they work in an environment that encourages change and adaptation, it will be reflected in the teachers’ approach to learning. When teachers work with colleagues and administrators who actively support fundamental change (as evidenced in technology plans), their practices and beliefs about instruction will gradually change (Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz, 1998).

Computer technology cannot be effectively incorporated into a teacher’s classroom merely as a reaction to its presence or its inclusion in a district technology plan. Each individual teacher needs to build his or her own professional development experiences and have the time reflect upon what he or she has learned so that he or she can effectively incorporate technology into the classroom. Teachers tend to draw upon their own knowledge of what works in the classroom; for that knowledge to include the use of computers, teachers must have experience with them as well as the time to reflect upon the role of computers in the learning process. It is a simplistic view to believe that computers are in and of themselves a catalyst for changes in instructional practice since it disregards the role of teacher development (Dexter, Anderson, and Becker, 1999).

Individual factors such as innovativeness, prior teaching practice, previous experience with technology, pedagogy, personal goals, technological self-competence, and perception regarding the role of technology have an impact on teachers’ use of information technology. However, environmental factors, such as state standards, staff evaluation, curriculum development, staff development and technology plan implementation, have twice as much influence on teachers’ use of technology in the classroom (Hanna, 2001). In contrast, the Oswego Model was developed on teachers’ perceptions of their own instructional needs and found that for the technology plan of a school district to be delivered to the students in a viable manner, staff development would have to be a part of the plan (Eastwood, Harmony, and Chamberlain, 1998).

Staff development and participation in a district technology plan is of the utmost importance. Teachers have indicated that they do not have time to investigate the technological applications that are available to them (this was especially true for those teachers who knew very little about technology). Furthermore, schools often fail to communicate effectively what is available to teachers when they do not maintain a coordinated information/acquisition/training program as part of the overall school technology plan (Gormly, 1996).

It has been more than fifteen years since release of the nation’s first educational technology plan. Considering the amount of expenditures put forth by the government, individuals and corporations to achieve the goal of the national plan combined with the exploding popularity of technology among Americans, it is important to examine how schools are progressing with their technology plans. Since teachers are the main point of delivery of technologically enhanced curricula, it is just as vital to also take investigate how they are adapting to the changes in educational technology.

I propose to conduct a qualitative portrait of the Mount Sinai School District (Mount Sinai, NY) in terms of technology, its technology plan, and teachers who employ “exemplary” use of technology. Since qualitative research has the natural setting as the direct source of data, I will conduct fieldwork within the three schools of Mount Sinai School District (the Elementary School with Dr. John Gentilcore, Principal; the Middle School with Mrs. Barbara Chu, Principal; and the High School with Dr. Peter Ferenz, Principal). Ms. Millie Marchese is the Assistant Principal for the Elementary School as well as the Technology Coordinator for the school district at large. Qualitative research is descriptive and its data is collected in the form of words (or pictures) rather than numbers. My data will include interviews (that will be audio-taped) with the aforementioned administrators; field observations (supplemented by field notes and interviews) of three teachers (Mrs. Mindy Sullivan/Elementary; Mrs. Elizabeth Carey/Middle School; and Mrs. Carol Salvia/High School) who are exemplary uses of technology in accordance with the school plan. The school maintains a written and revised Technology Plan for the district which will be used as a primary document to support this study. I plan to submit a questionnaire to all of the teachers in the district that investigates use of technology as expressed in the district technology plan as well as their beliefs about the integration of educational technologies in general.

I believe that a qualitative approach is the most appropriate method for this study. Its main purpose is to understand how the school district is incorporating a national plan into its environment and how it has been able to adapt the national plan to the local needs of Mount Sinai, New York. Its other objective is to understand how this plan to incorporate technology has affected teacher beliefs and practice in the classroom. Since I am not proposing to assess how the use of technology might be improved in Mount Sinai, I do not feel that this study calls for action research (since that approach calls for investigation, proposing changes and improvements and a reassessment of the situation). Neither is a think-aloud analysis suited to this study since it does not involve any problem solving. A qualitative approach will best show how the district technology plan has affected the teaching practices in the Mount Sinai School District.

References
Anderson, Larry S. (1996). K-12 Technology Planning at State, District and Local Levels. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. ED # 393448. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from http://www.askeric.org.

Barnett, Harvey (October 2000). Successful K-12 Technology Planning: Ten Essential Elements. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. ED #457858. Retrieved 23 October 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed457858.html.

Dexter, S.L., Anderson, R.E., and Becker, H.J. (Spring 1999). Teacher’s views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31 (3), 221-239.

Dwyer, David C., Ringstaff, Cathy, and Sandholtz, Judith Haymore (1998). ACOT reports #8 and #9: teacher beliefs and practices: parts I and II. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot.

Fries, B. and Monahan, B. (Jan.-Feb. 1998). School district technology planning in an era of rapid change. Educational Technology, 38 (1), 60-62.

Gormly, Eric K. (1996). Implementation of technology in American public schools: a qualitative study. American Secondary Education, 24 (2), 14-25.

Hanna, Barbara Reber. (2001). Factors influencing teachers’ use of information technology in their classrooms. PhD. Dissertation. The University of Connecticut. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from FirstSearfh database http://www.sunysb.edu/library.

Herndon, John P. and Yarrow, John (Feb. 1996). Guidelines for creating a network: a case study. Learning and Leading with Technology. 23, p. 31-33.

Hunt, Jeffrey L. (1995). How do local school districts formulate educational technology policy? PhD. Dissertation Northern Illinois University. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from FirstSearch database http://www.sunysb.edu/library.

Lumley, Richard D. (1991). Research, development, and validation of a K-12 technology Planning guide for school administrators. PhD. Dissertation Kansas State University. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from FirstSearch database
http://www.sunysb.edu/library.

U.S. Department of Education (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st century: meeting the technology literacy challenge: a report to the nation on technology and education. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/NatTechPlan/

U.S. Department of Education (Dec. 1998). An educator's guide to evaluating the use of technology in schools and classrooms. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). E-learning: putting a world class education at the fingertips of all children: the national educational technology plan. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/elearning/index.html.

Williams, Catrina (2000). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-1999. National Center for Education Studies. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000086.