Qualitative Research

INTRODUCTION

The Mount Sinai Union Free School District is a suburban school district serving a student population of approximately 2300 students, K-12. It has a relatively homogeneous student population from a stable middle-class community. This small hamlet is located on the north shore of Long Island, 65 miles from New York City. It covers an area of six square miles and has an approximate population of 10,000. Three schools provide education to the community's children enrolled K-12.

The use of computers and computer networks has become increasingly common in schools, as an aid in instruction and to provide educational enrichment. Computer networks provide schools with unique opportunities for statewide, national, and international collaboration on class projects, curriculum materials, and idea sharing. Educational technology provides students and staff with access to various software applications, hundreds of databases, libraries and computer services from all over the world through Internet an other electronic information systems. The Internet allows students the opportunity to reach out to many other people to share information, learn concepts, and research subjects by the sending and receiving of messages using a computer with network and Internet access.

The district is committed to the optimization of student learning and teaching. It considers a computer network to be a valuable tool for education and encourages the use of computers and computer-related technology in district classrooms. Each of the district's schools is linked by a fiber optic computer network with full Internet access. The advantages of these computer networks serve the administrative and academic needs alike. The district mission plan states the following:

It is the mission of the district to provide all our students and teachers with educational opportunities in the accessing and utilization of technology. This will empower them to reach or exceed our district's standards of excellence. Further, it will enable them to be productive and responsible citizens who can succeed in our rapidly changing world. Our schools must strive to provide the powerful learning opportunities afforded by technology to enrich and enhance the curriculum to improve student achievement.

The district started implementation of its network plan in 1991 with the fiber optic wiring of classrooms and administrative offices in all of the district's three buildings. In 1996 the first technology plan for the district was developed with all major stakeholders involved. After developing a comprehensive technology plan, the district appointed a computer coordinator to oversee the use of district computer resources, based upon the standards developed for the long term plan. The district hired computer technicians, an assistant to the superintendent for staff development, and two technology staff developers.

Two basic instructional computing models are used throughout the district. A classroom model consists of four to five systems connected to printers. The computer lab model consists of 15 to 32 systems located in a single lab. All systems are connected to the district's wide area network and the Internet. In addition, three new instructional computer labs were installed in the high school in 2000 (other computing models were installed in 1997). The new labs, or "Smart Rooms," contain 32 student stations in Nova Series 88 glass top desks, one teacher station, ceiling mounted LCD projector, and one "smart" white board.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The major impetus for school districts to develop a technology plan comes from the government. On February 15, 1996, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Technology Literacy Challenge, envisioning a 21st century where all students benefit from the use of educational technology. The challenge was placed before the nation as a whole, with responsibility for its accomplishment shared by local communities, states, the private sector, educators, parents, the federal government, and others. At the heart of this challenge were four concrete goals that help to define the task at hand:

* All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway.
* All teachers and students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms.
* Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway.
* Effective software and on-line learning resources will be an integral part of every school's curriculum.

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).

RESEARCH QUESTION

Developing a school or district technology plan is a critical issue in education today. To realize the benefits of technology, schools must develop a plan for integrating technology into the curriculum. An effective technology plan is based on the shared vision of educators, parents, community members, and business leaders who have technological expertise. It ensures that technology strengthens existing curricula and supports meaningful, engaged learning for all students. It also specifies how the technology will be paid for and how its use will be supported. Two questions arise out of this issue in education that is relative to technology: 1) How can schools best approach the creation of a technology plan? and 2) How does the resulting district technology plan affect teacher epistemology and practice?

RESEARCH METHOD

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 conducted 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 conducted fieldwork within the three schools of Mount Sinai School District. Qualitative research is descriptive and its data is collected in the form of words (or pictures) rather than numbers. My data includes interviews (that will be audio-taped) with three administrators and six teachers. The school maintains a written and revised Technology Plan for the district which will be used as a primary document to support this study. A second primary document that I reviewed was a report researched and written by the Director of Math, Science, and Technology of the Mount Sinai school district entitled "Technology Infused Curriculum Study: Final Report." I submitted 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.

RESULTS

The response rate to the teacher questionnaire was better than average: 59% of the teachers in the district responded. The survey used a Likert scale to assess teacher familiarity with both national technology plans and the district technology plan as well as their familiarity with a variety of educational technologies (see Appendix B).

Table 1: Teacher Response Rate to Questionnaire

Overall results show that the teachers are only slightly familiar with U.S. government documents pertaining to educational technology in the classroom, such as "Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century" (1996), "Educator's Guide to Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms" (1998), and "E-Learning: Putting a World Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children; The National Technology Plan" (1999). Using a Likert scale of 1-5, where 1 is unfamiliar and 5 is complete familiarity, the average familiarity with the aforementioned documents among the teachers was 1.7.

Table 6: Why Teachers in Mt. Sinai Use Technology in the Classroom

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree

I incorporate technology because it is required by the district technology plan
17 41 12 0

I incorporate technology because I wanted to do so
0 0 13 57

I incorporate technology both because I wanted to do so and it is required by the plan 0 0 3 67

Additional information was gathered in the form of individual interviews with teachers and administrators. Three elementary school teachers, two middle school, and one high school teacher were interviewed (see Appendix A) during a three week period. Three individuals in administrative positions were interviewed during the same three week period (see Appendix B). On average, the teacher interviews revealed that they are very familiar with certain aspects of the district plan for technology. Teachers were most aware of the expectations for their specific grade level as well as the grades immediately before and after them. All of the teachers interviewed agree with the goal set forth in the plan and most find them to be realistic. The only hesitation a few of the teachers expressed with regards to being able to achieve all the goals centered around a lack of time. They felt that if there was more time in the day to devote to computer work, that they would be infusing technology more effectively. Three teachers interviewed commented on the aspect of time: "They [technology goals] are pretty realistic, but sometimes they can be tough to incorporate along with everything else in the curriculum;" "It's not difficult [to incorporate technology], it's just time consuming;" " I like to use computers, but putting it all together, and putting it together well, is time consuming." Teachers also indicated that the goals were age appropriate and worthwhile. None of the teachers with whom I spoke found it difficult to incorporate technology in the classroom.

Questionnaire results did not indicate any noticeable correlation between teacher age, experience, or gender and computer use in the classroom. The only time in this study that teacher age seemed to be a factor was when assessing how technology as outlined in the district plan has affected their beliefs and practices. As one would expect, the introduction and integration of computers and other technologies has altered the way veteran teachers teach. One interviewee said, "When I started teaching, there was no technology . . . I learned as much as I could and I use it to enhance lessons." On the other hand, newer teachers indicated that they had grown up with technology and had been trained in its uses in the classroom as part of their college level education. As one teacher recounted, "It [technology] really hasn't changed my beliefs because it's all I've ever known. For my master's I did a concentration in educational technology, so I started off right away using the computer. So nothing has really changed for me, it's always been there." However, this disparity should not be taken to indicate any less enthusiasm for technology integration on the part of the veteran teachers; they were just as interested in providing students with technologically infused instruction as their younger counterparts.

All the teachers interviewed believe that educational technology is impacting student learning in a positive way. Most indicated that using computers in the classroom was very motivating for the students, that is, they showed excitement about learning when technology was part of the lesson. A high school teacher who teaches regularly in the Smart Room said "I have to kick them out at the end of the period." A few teachers also mentioned that the technology facilitated collaborative activities among the students. The first grade teacher noted that "children are working cooperatively on the computer—you can have one child reading and one typing and the other proofreading, so it's good for cooperative learning." One teacher mentioned that it allows the students to be more independent of the teacher. The kids have to be able to access, save, and retrieve information, whether it be their own work that is saved on a disk or on the district network. A final point that was made regarding the impact of technology on students is that the exposure and experience that they are getting now will prepare them for life following school where nearly every career will involve some aspect of technology.

Much of the technology that is incorporated into the classrooms in Mount Sinai seem to be fairly straightforward applications. Teachers engage the students in Internet information gathering and the creation of projects using a variety of computer applications. The projects present a blank slate to the children in which they construct new knowledge.

Some teachers in the high school deliver lessons exclusively via computer technologies. The three teachers involved in a wholly technology infused curriculum teach in a "Smart Room." The high school has three of these types of classrooms that each contain 32 student stations in Nova Series 88 glass top desks, one teacher station, ceiling mounted LCD projector, and one "smart" white board. These classes are involved in a "Phase III usage of technology" which means that computers are being used for drill and practice on specific topics (Phase I), as well as to provide information in an interactive format (Phase II), and additionally to access the global network of multimedia information and online learning communities. The district study on these technology infused courses found that the number of students attaining a mastery level to be 5% higher than those who did not participate in the infused classes (increased mastery is expressed by higher test scores). It also found that infusing Web-based computer technology into the curriculum increased student interest and motivation 90%-97% (the source of this data is anonymous student surveys upon course completion). Direct observations represented a second source of information to help reinforce the effectiveness of a Web-based curriculum on student interest and motivation. It was evident to the researcher that students in the infused sections generally enjoyed being in class and were eager to learn and discover new things. In comparison, students in the control sections exhibited some lack of interest and some students tended to wander off-task throughout the period.

Staff development is also a part of the Mount Sinai district technology plan, specifically the Technology Academy. The majority of teachers interviewed were not enthusiastic about the modular courses offered by the school. Their dissatisfaction was caused by a variety of reasons, including the inconvenience of the classes in terms of time, location and cost as well the lack of variety in the courses offered. Two of the teachers felt that it was a good idea that has not been carried out effectively. All of the teachers agreed that there is a need for technology instruction for faculty, but offered no alternatives to the Technology Academy. Teachers indicated a preference to learn on their own or to get advice and help from school technology staff members.

Interviews with three of the administrators who comprise the Technology Team and who were also members of the original Technology Committee provided information that are indicators of why technology integration in Mount Sinai is being embraced. The original technology plan was developed in early 1996, prior to President Bill Clinton's Technology Literacy Challenge. The district Management Information System Specialist described how all three schools in the district were wired and equipped with state state-of-the-art technology in 1990-1991 when the high school for the district was being built. With the growth and development within the district, both in terms of student enrollment and staff, it became evident that a formal plan for educational technology integration and committee to direct the process was needed. Although the administrators I spoke with all stated that the Mount Sinai technology plan was not developed as a response to the national plan, the district plan contains many of the key aspects recommended by President Clinton. The creation of the plan involved all key stakeholders: teachers, administrators, school board members, parents and community members. The actual development meetings were not open to the public. The finished technology plan was presented to the entire district community at a school board meeting where comments on the plan were heard. The administrators interviewed all agreed that the inclusion of a wide variety of interested parties resulted in a successful plan. The plan itself is revised on a yearly basis by the district Management Information System Specialist who circulates it for comments to other Technology Team members.

The plan and the administrators require staff development and support with respect to technology in the district. To this end Mount Sinai employs the following support staff: a computer coordinator to oversee the use of district computer resources; a full time computer technician for each school to assist in keeping the hardware in good running condition; an Assistant to the Superintendent for Staff Development; two full time technology staff developers who provide hands on support and training for teachers as well as develop and prepare in service programs for the incorporation of computer use in specific subject areas. Since the district is relatively small, the aforementioned staff has been able to satisfy the technological needs of the instructional staff.

DISCUSSION

The qualitative study of the technology plan and its impact on the teachers of Mount Sinai school district shows that technology integration is encouraged, valued, and accepted through the school system. The district has made tremendous strides to meet the four goals outlined in President Clinton's Technology Literacy Challenge. The teachers in Mount Sinai have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway in the form of a tech support person in each school, two technology staff developers, a technology curriculum developer, a district technology coordinator, an information system specialist, the Technology Academy and the Technology Task Force. All teachers and students have access to modern multimedia computers in their classrooms. Mount Sinai has gone several steps beyond this and has fully automated the libraries in each of the three schools and have set up three Smart Rooms in the high school. Every classroom as well as each library is connected to the information superhighway. Effective software and online learning resources are an integral part of the school curriculum.

With regards to the development of a technology plan for a particular district, literature in the field suggests that one of the best ways for a school district to create a successful technology policy is to garner the support and input from the community at large, the school board, the teachers and the administration (Barnett, 2002; Fries and Monahan, 1998; Anderson, 1996). This aspect of technology planning was successfully completed when the district formed the Technology Committee in 1996 when the first formal technology plan was written. Administrators who were interviewed all agreed that the involvement of all stakeholders has been critical to the successful implementation of the goals outlined in the plan. Furthermore, each member of the district who is using educational technology feels comfortable and confident due to the affirmation and support they receive from all stakeholders. This affirms the statement the when teachers work with colleagues and administrators who actively support fundamental changes as evidenced in the school technology plan, their practices and beliefs about instruction will change as well.

Literature also asserts that 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 (Dexter, Anderson, Becker, 1999). Teacher comments from interviews in Mount Sinai support this: "I came back from a maternity leave and they were here [four computers and printers connected to district network and Internet]. I had to develop effective ways to incorporate the technology;" "I came here [to Mount Sinai] from a district that was really archaic in terms of technology . . . and when I came here I thought, 'This is great! I 'm going to use this.' I forced myself to learn it and use it." In a school district such as Mount Sinai it is easy to realize that it is a simplistic view to believe that computers are in and of themselves a catalyst for changes in instructional practice.

Another important aspect of successful technology integration is staff development. Since the plan's inception and implementation in 1996, the district has provided different forms of staff development in the area of educational technology. The administration believes that without it, the plan would not be carried out effectively. Although Mount Sinai did effectively communicate what is available to teachers with respect to acquisitions and training as part of the overall technology policy, it appears that one aspect of staff development is in great need of improvement: the Technology Academy. All of the teachers interviewed felt that it had a great start, but had recently become outdated and had outlived its usefulness. The Technology Academy is a good resource for teachers; participation was initially high. Classes offered were , but they have not evolved significantly. The teachers are familiar with the applications and topics that are covered by the Academy (Introduction to Computing Skills; Introduction to KidPix; Using Power Point; Introduction to Web Quests; Making Excel Easy; etc.). One recommendation that Mount Sinai should consider is to create more advanced classes that would expand the current use of technology in the classroom.

After studying the technology plan and its implementation and incorporation into the daily functions of classroom activity at Mount Sinai school district, it is possible to offer some answers to the original research questions: "How can an individual school district best approach the creation of a technology plan?" and "How does the resulting district technology plan affect teacher epistemology and practice?" Clearly, the major factor in creating an effective technology plan is the inclusion of all interested parties within the district. Excluding one or more groups will result in a less balanced and a less than complete plan. Administrators, teachers, parents, the school board, and general community members each contribute a different point of view and have different needs, all of which should be addressed in the plan. The result is a technology plan that has 100% support. The plan affects teacher epistemology and practice. The teachers in Mount Sinai have evolved in their beliefs about teaching to the point that they feel comfortable and good about allowing students to construct their own knowledge through educational technology. Their practices have been altered so that lessons, regardless of grade level or subject content, utilize some aspect of educational technology on a regular and continuous basis.

This study could have been more thorough in several ways. Although the response rate to the teacher questionnaire was good (slightly more than 63%), a higher rate would have been preferable. Analysis would also have benefited from more teacher interviews at the high school level. More data from original members of the Technology Committee that created the technology plan (only three were available for interviews during this study) would also have provided a more balanced understanding and discussion of the development of the technology policy in the district. For instance, the district technology coordinator stated that two community members who hold prominent positions in technology companies, Computer Associates and Symbol Technology, were participants in the creation of the district plan. Speaking with them would have added quite a different perspective to this study. One confounding factor encountered while conducting this study was the inability to speak with those teachers who are known not to use technology as a regular part of classroom instruction. Their reasons why they fail to use technology as directed by the technology plan would have shed considerable light on the subject.

CONCLUSION

Mount Sinai is a good example of how a well developed technology plan can make positive changes within a school district. The Technology Literacy Challenge that was developed by the Clinton administration sets forth guidelines for that state and local bodies can incorporate effectively into their own plans. One lesson learned is that the involvement of as many concerned interests as possible results in a plan that can be fully implemented. A second lesson is that teachers of all levels of experience are capable of changing their beliefs and practices so that students reap the full benefits of educational technology if a viable plan exists that is supported by the administration and the community.

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.

Schiedet, Robert (November 2002). Technology infused curriculum study: final report. Mount Sinai Free School District. Technology Plan (2002 Update). Mount Sinai Free School District.

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.

Appendix A: Teacher Interviews

TEACHER INTERVIEW #1 Date: 11/13/02

Teacher background: 1st grade/15 years teaching

Q: How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

A: I'm most familiar with Clinton's plan of getting students ready for the 21st century. The other government docs I was not familiar with. Dawn showed me a copy of each and I'd like to review them. I am also familiar with Bush's plan, NCLB (No Child Left Behind).

Q: How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

A: I am very familiar with our district plan. I have developed my own computer project for my classroom based on the district technology plan and on meeting the goals in it as well as the NY state standards for learning, mostly incorporating the social studies curriculum.

Q: Do you agree with the goals set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

A: Yes, I do agree with the goals –they are very realistic. We have had computers in the classroom—I believe this is the fifth year—I believe that I came back from maternity leave with my daughter, and she's now 5, and they were here. That would be a good question for the tech coordinator, "In what year did we get computers in the classroom?" So, umm, . .

Q: Are they realistic?

A: Over the years I have found that every child can meet the goals in the district plan.

Q: Yes, I see my own children using the available technology—Power Point, Word documents, stuff like that.

A: All do because some of the goals are as simple as learning to use the mouse and being able to save to disc—"learning Ctrl S" –the goals are very age appropriate

Q: How are you incorporating technology in the classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? Has it changed your teaching beliefs and practices? If so,how?

A: No, it's not a hard thing to do at all. I believe that technology use in the classroom is above and beyond what is required by the plan. A few things that go on is I do a Hyperstudio project by myself taking social studies, NY state standards, for creating timelines and we do a family tree and my family celebrates—we talk about different family traditions—map skills, where do I live? in a year long project "All About Me." Each grade level is required to do a grade project and in 1st grade this year we are doing a slide show with the computer program Kid Pix. Last year was the first year we had completed projects and we'll be doing them again this year. The slide show is based on a unit of study, again incorporating Social Studies standards, we were doing Arctic animals. Each child will be doing a page –create one slide. They have to read non fiction books and learn facts. They type their sentences in the computer and add a picture. Each child had a page in the slide show. Another way that we use computers is for editing and saving purposes. Students write in their [electronic] journals, Mt. Sinai has a writing program where we, the teacher, will conference with the child and correct their work. For instance, three lines under would be to capitalize, a circle at the end means "needs punctuation" and so on. Then the children would use the teacher corrected print out and use the computer to make corrections. The children have to use the chart that shows them what the symbols meant (3 lines under for capitalization, etc) and internalize the change and make it in their document. This is how they developed their slide.

Q: Is the slide show similar to a Power Point?—a younger version?

A: Yes, exactly. You know why we don't use Power Point—the drawing tools are much better in Kid Pix. They're more child friendly and age appropriate. We have a brand new version –Kid Pix Deluxe 3--that we just got this year. Another way that I incorporate technology into my teaching is in the new Kid Pix program has become a new math station. So I'm running math stations totally in centers. Right now we're working on addition, we'll be moving on to subtraction, but one of the stations is to go to the computer while others are working at separate stations

Q: There's only 4 computers in the class . . .

A: yes and they use stamps and write equations. They can do it one of two ways: they can either write the number or draw it with the stamps. It also teaches them how to use the shift button –depressing shift gives them a plus sign and without it it's an equal sign. So they're doing math and learning computer functions as well.

Q: It's like having another teacher in the class with you?

A: It's wonderful, it really is. And we haven't used it at all, computers that is, for, not saying that it's a bad thing, but it's not in Mt. Sinai's learning plan, we don't use it for drill and practice. It's always something more than that. We also figure that kids do that sort of stuff at home and we want to focus on teacher created projects. The big thrust in our plan is using the technology as a tool.

Q: What do you think it would be like in a less affluent district where you can't assume that kids have computers and educational software at home?

A: That's a good question. We were discussing that the other day—the first grade teachers—and the newer teachers were surprised at the level of computer skills that the children have. We did a poll and 85% of the kids had computers at home and their skills are wonderful. It makes our job easier. Another thing that they do on the computer, it's a center for math, but it's also a center during the morning when we're doing language arts and reading. There's always a specific task for them to do. So whatever we're studying there's something for them to do. If we're reading about turkeys, they can do a turkey picture with some text on the computer that reinforces the lesson. We worked with reference books about bats and they wrote stories with their drawings. The text box feature in the new Kid Pix is very user friendly –the last one was too difficult for most of them—you had to change tools, then get the box, stretch the box, change tools again to type the text—I used to set it up for them. The new version is much easier –it comes up set.

As far as changing my beliefs and practices, it's really come to be a part of my beliefs and practices.

Q: How has educational technology impacted student learning in your experience?

A: It's impacting student learning in a positive way. Children are working cooperatively on the computer—you can have one child reading and one typing, so it's good for cooperative learning. It's only expanded upon their learning. I think they see it as another means to an end. They don't have just pencil and paper –they have another way. It gets teachers and kids out of the box—you don't have to do things in only one way.

Q: They like it—using computers in the classroom?

A: Oh, they love it.

Q: Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: The Technology Academy in our school is courses given to teachers about different technology topics. I haven't taken any courses, but I have been asked to give the courses. At this time in my life, it's just not been the time to take these classes—I've got 4 kids, but I keep up with technology on my own. I believe that the task force is Ms. X and Ms. Y and they are our support system. We have grade level meetings to discuss the project and to get ready for the year end Technology Showcase where our projects, the slide shows, were presented.

Q: And each year and each class within it had their own project?

A: Yes, there were five 1st grade slide shows and the second grade did graphing in Excel. The 3rd graders did Power Point and the 4th graders did a project tied into social studies where they reproduced a newspaper on the computer. The Task force supports the grade level projects.

Q: You can see how the technology is built upon—they move from Kid Pix slide show to creating graphs that can be used in a Power Pt the next year which is a step up from the easier slide format.

A: Yes—you can see the plan at work. Each year it builds upon the knowledge gained in previous years. It goes all the way up to the high school.

Q:Have you incorporated technology

A: Because I wanted to, and because I love it –it's exciting and the kids love it.

Q: Do you think there are teachers in the district that don't want to incorporate technology?

A: Oh yeah, but we're a strong school district and everyone has their forte and technology might not be it –I'm sure that they're doing something great that I couldn't do—they are many ways to motivate students and technology is just one of them. It's been wonderful for me though because it leads to so much brainstorming—with the kids, with other teachers—you know, what can we do next? It seems that once you start a computer project all these other things come out of it that you didn't even expect. Once you understand technology, how it works and what it's capable of , it's so easy to come up with ideas of things to do with the kids. It's also helped me become more organized as a teacher. I started using the computer for report cards. I've set up folders for each of my kids –it's so much easier for attendance, too. The grading program has the attendance too and it's linked to the student information—address, phone, contact info—so, technology has been great for the kids but it's also been a great thing for us.

Q: It would be great if teachers in the district posted homework on the web through the school web site. I know that a few were doing this, but after a hacker got in and posted something derogatory about one of the teachers, the teachers no longer had access to the web site.

A: I have to tell you that a couple of years ago, my daughter had Teacher X [in Mt. Sinai SD] who always posted the homework on a weekly basis and it was great for a couple of reasons—if she forgot her homework or what the assignment was or if she knew a certain day was going to be really busy, she could go ahead and do the work on a slow day. It gave her, my daughter, a sense of time management. It was great—it should have been the model. I'd tell you to speak with her, but she's on leave.

TEACHER INTERVIEW #2 Date: 11/15/02

Teacher background: 2nd grade/3 years teaching

Q: How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

A: I’m familiar only with Clinton’s "Getting Students Ready" plan and Bush’s "No Child Left Behind."

Q: When you say you are familiar with these directives, how familiar would you say –on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being most familiar.

A: Honestly? Well, maybe only about a 4. I don’t think that I could quote anything off the top of my head, but I know that they encourage the use of computers in the classroom. Bush wants to ensure that all students, regardless of the financial state of the district, have access to computers in the classroom.

Q: You bring up the subject of the financial status of a district—here in Mount Sinai we are fortunate to be dealing with a relatively affluent tax base. Do you think that affects our use technology?

A: Yeah, it’s great to have so many computers in every classroom and even the library is fully automated now. My sister teaches at the high school and she said that the computer labs and whiteboard classrooms are incredible.

Q: Can you envision something like that at the elementary level?

A: Well, not on a daily basis, but it would be great to have a 30 student computer lab here. It would be great to schedule a lesson where all the kids could work individually on something.

Q: How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

A: Very familiar. I think we all are. It requires us to incorporate computers in the curriculum so you have to know what is required of your students at your particular grade level. We have grade level meetings about what is expected of all the second graders—what computer skills they need to acquire by the end of the year and we have a grade level project that must be completed by May. It’s presented at the Technology Fair by the district tech coordinator. But we also know what's going on at all levels. Teachers know what the kids have learned in previous grades and you have to prepare them for what's coming up.

Q: Yes, I attended the first one last year. It was great to see what the students have learned with regards to technology.

A: Last year was my first year in this district and I was a little overwhelmed by learning not only the basic curriculum, but then having to tie in a computer based project. Luckily, my husband is very into computers and things like that, so he was a great help to me personally.

Q: I was going to ask you later, but you’ve led me to it now. Was it difficult to incorporate technology in your lesson plans?

A: Yes and no. It’s hard just being a new teacher. I’m newly married, I’m working on my master’s, and I have to develop all my lesson plans for Mt. Sinai. Like I said, my husband is a technology teacher, so I always have someone to help in that area, and I like to use computers, but putting it all together, putting it together well, is time consuming and it’s stressful at times. When you know that you’re going to observed, and the assistant principal is also the district tech coordinator—she supervises out grade level projects, you feel a lot of pressure to get it right. You hope the students work well together and that they get it.

Q: Do you agree with the goal set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

A: Oh yes, definitely I agree with the plan. When I first looked at the requirements it seemed like a lot to cover in a year, but the kids are pretty familiar with computers in general. They’ve learned certain basic things in first grade and I spend the first two months pretty much reviewing what they learned in 1st grade. They forget so much over the summer, but it comes back . . . eventually. Then I go on from there.

Q: How are you incorporating technology in your classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? How is it changing your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: I incorporate technology in the classroom with a year long project in Excel.

Q: Can you tell me about it?

A: It’s tied into the curriculum. They learn how to make simple charts and graphs. The first one we did was with apples at the end of September. We do a whole unit on apples—books, Johnny Appleseed, talking about the different kinds of apples. We still work on grouping and sorting, building upon what they learned in first grade. Anyway, each student brought in their favorite apple and we grouped them according to type of apple—Granny Smith, Mac, Delicious … and then they filled out a worksheet. From there they went to the computers and created simple bar graphs that showed the different kinds of apples liked by the class. Later on in the holiday season, we’ll create a pie chart showing the percentage of those who celebrate Christmas, Chanukah or Kwanzaa.

Q: How is educational technology impacting student learning in your experience?

A: I find that the kids are excited about it. When I explain to them that we’re going to be learning about mealworms, for instance, and that we will read about them and go the library to get the books and that we’ll also do an Internet search for more information and that eventually we’ll do an Excel project with the information that they collected they get very excited. They love seeing the finished project that they’ve created with information that they’ve gathered. I think that they feel connected to the lessons when they get to create something on the computer. It’s the way kids learn now.

Q: Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: No, I haven’t taken any of the classes offered by the Technology Academy. My husband actually teaches several of them, so I kind of get my information informally from him. And I already spend two nights a week at Dowling for my master’s and I’m doing a lot for that so, I just don’t have the time to go to the Academy classes. They’re not even offering them on a consistent basis anymore. And the Task force is not something that teachers participate in—it’s a kind of support thing for us. You can contact them if you’re having difficulty with the hardware or software in your classroom.

Q: How has technology changed your teaching beliefs or practices?

A: I’m new to teaching and I’m young too (relatively—to some of the other teachers) so it’s something that I’ve been taught to incorporate right from the start. I have always known that computers will be a part of my classroom activities. They were here when I took over last year. Like I said earlier, the main thrust in Mt. Sinai is to successfully complete the grade level project so that’s a big part of how my teaching practice is geared to include technology. The library automation is new though. The kids were already familiar with OPAC from the public libraries in the area and it’s really the librarian’s job to help them with that.

TEACHER INTERVIEW #3 Date: 11/18/02

Teacher background: 3rd grade/4 years teaching

Q: How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

A: Is it bad if I say the truth? I'm not familiar with any of them. [I show them to her] I'm familiar with Bush's No Child Left Behind, but not with these. I was still in college when these came out.

Q: How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

A: That I'm very familiar with—I know what it requires me to teach with regards to technology for third grade and I'm familiar with what grades previous to third have done and what will be expected of them next year. The grade level project that we're working on is Inspirations. It's a web creating program where the kids think of an idea and fill in the details. The first lesson I did with them they just filled in the bubbles and the next one they learned how to label and yesterday they learned how to make the bubbles, they don't know how to color them in yet. It's a great program and they learn something new each week. They use a drawing tool from the symbol palette—you get to pick your shape or choose a picture, you can use a template or create your own.

Q: Do you agree with the goal set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

A: Yes, I agree with the goals. They are pretty realistic, but sometimes they can be tough to incorporate along with everything else in the curriculum. To add in the technology piece, it's sometimes difficult. You really have to spend time thinking of how to integrate it well into the curriculum –that's the toughest part. I use Inspiration a lot with reading where they have to give the main idea and then details. Or a listening skill—we'll be doing that next week where they have to listen and take notes on the setting, the characters, the order of events in the story, the central problem of the story and the ending. Then I'm going to have them put all their work on to Inspiration.

Q: And will they do all the work themselves, and save it at the end?

A: Yes, and believe it or not, that 's the hardest part—to get them to know how to open things up and also how to save work. It's very hard for them. We have the school network and they need to know how to save on to the network because in theory and it would work in practice, they could go on to any computer in the district, find their folder and access their work. It's a multi-step process that's especially hard for the younger students. They have to go to file save, go to the K drive, find my name and then they have to find the folder that says student work and then they go in and find their own file. They have a hard time with it because there are so many steps involved.

Q: It sounds very time consuming as well as complicated –

A: Yeah, it really is and that's what's unrealistic about it. It's the same problem with the computer on wheels—have you heard about that?

Q: Yes, how is that working?

A: We've used them in here, the kids are excited about them, but the time . . . you have to unload and load them back on the cart. They come on a cart and they're all plugged into the cart to charge. You have to pull them off the cart and unplug each of them. I've got to hand them out. At the end, of course, I've got to collect all of them, plug them back in to the cart and load them on the cart—in the correct spot because they're all numbered and they have to go in a particular slot.

Q: It sounds like you need more time?

A: Yes, it takes a good ten to fifteen minutes to deal with the cart. Time is definitely an issue. Another thing with the laptops is that they run XP, but the PCs run an older version of windows so its difficult for them because it's set up differently. Also they have to learn how to use the touch pads on the laptops after we've spent so much time teaching them right and left and double clicking. Manipulating the touch pad is hard for them. But now they're in the process of getting mice for the laptops, but that's more time attach them. It's definitely time consuming in an already short day.

And if there's a problem with one of the laptops . . . this happened the other day, a few of them weren't charged up, we had just enough, but then the battery went out and a couple of kids had to share. It wasn't the worst thing that I've had happen, but it wasn't the ideal setup for the two who had to share.

Q: How are you incorporating technology in your classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? How is it changing your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: Yes, I definitely use technology in my classroom—right now I'm using Inspiration. It really hasn't changed my beliefs because it's all I've ever known. For my master's I did a concentration in educational technology, so I started off right away using the computer. So nothing has really changed for me, it's always been there.

Q: Do you think there are teachers in the district who don't use technology in their classrooms?

A: Oh yeah.

Q: Do you think it's a time issue—it would require developing new lesson plans—or is it something else?

A: It could be time, or they're content with what they have, but I think it's a fear thing a lot of times. You have to start small—how can I incorporate it, technology, a little bit. I think they think it's this big thing, but it doesn't have to be. It can be something as simple as a workbook page to start. It's exciting and the kids gravitate to it—technology is very motivating.

Q: How is educational technology impacting student learning in your experience?

A: It makes them a lot more excited about learning. Next week I'm doing a lesson that's going to be evaluated. It's going to be a listening activity but knowing that they're going to be able to take their notes and put them on the computer is going to completely motivate them. They ask on a daily basis, "Do we get to work on the computers today?"

Q: Do you use them every day?

A: I'm working on a computer schedule—always a half hour on Mondays and Wednesday and I think that I'm getting the laptops one other day and then I try to use the PCs here and there depending on how much time we have. If there's extra time, I try to get them on, but time is really scarce. And if you're working on a skill and it's important that they get it before going on to the computer, it's important to weigh what's important and it's important that they learn the curriculum skill first.

Q: How do you do with four computers for the whole class (28)?

A: They work in groups and they have to keep track of their time and switch off amongst themselves. They have an agenda of what they're working on and they have to take turns.

Q: Have you seen the computer labs at the high school?

A: Oh Yeah! With the whiteboards? They're awesome.

Q: Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: Yeah, I took a couple.

Q: You don't sound thrilled. How were they?

A: They were okay. I took an Inspiration class and a Power Point, I think, no, it was a Print Shop. They're only 2 1&Mac218;2 hours. You're just getting into something and it's over. It would be nice if it was more drawn out and you could create a whole project. Or they offer classes on stuff that I already was familiar with or that was easy enough to teach myself. It's good that they offer them—gives you a change to be exposed to certain things with colleagues, but sometimes it's just not enough to really use them adequately.

Q: And the Task Force?

A: Oh that's just the tech coordinator and she used to have a tech support person for all 3 schools, but now it's just the coordinator. She gives support and coordinates grade projects and the technology fair at the end of the year.

TEACHER INTERVIEW #4 Date: 11/19/02

Teacher background: high school teacher/12 years experience

Note: This teacher preferred to answer my questions via email due to time constraints and a busy schedule.

--How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

[teacher] Very familiar

--How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

[teacher] Very familiar

--Do you agree with the goal set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

[teacher] Yes - the goals are realistic and allow enough time for training

--How are you incorporating technology in your classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? How is it changing your teaching beliefs and practices?

[teacher] My French courses are taught in the SmartRoom using computers and a SmartBoard. It has not been difficult for me, since I am very comfortable around computers and I spent two years preparing for the change (finding and organizing relevant sites, putting tests and quizzes online, reviewing computer software, etc.

--How is educational technology impacting student learning in your experience?

[teacher] Students are able to get immediate feedback after completing an exercise & have a wide variety of activities to choose from in the course of a class period. They are never bored, and they are able to work at their own pace. They have access to homework, classwork and review activities 24 hours a day. There is no doubt that technology has had a very positive impact on student learning.

--Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

[teacher] As an instructor in the Technology Academy, I have had the opportunity to see the importance of technology in all areas of study.

--Have you incorporated technology because you wanted to or because it was part of the district Technology Plan?

[teacher] Because I wanted to

TEACHER INTERVIEW #5 Date: 11/21/02

Teacher background: 6th grade middle school teacher/27 years experience

Q: How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

A: I would say that I am quite familiar with "Getting Students Ready for the 21st Century" as well as Bush’s new directive "No Child Left Behind."

Q: How would you describe these two directives?

A: They are broad plans that stress the importance of incorporating technology into individual classrooms throughout the country. Bush’s plan stresses the need to ensure that every student is able to meet or exceed state curriculum standards with special attention to proven teaching methods.

Q: How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

A: I am very familiar with it. It outlines the technology goals that each student needs to meet by grade level. I think it also discusses the different types of technology we have physically in each school and talks about the goals and acquisitions for the future.

Q: Do you agree with the goal set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

A: Yes, I agree with the goals in the plan and they are realistic. We are fortunate enough to have computers in every classroom, support staff and a community that realizes the importance of technology in education. The kids all have computers at home and use them. I think that because of their level of exposure that they are at ease with using computers to learn or reinforce learning.

Q: How are you incorporating technology in your classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? How is it changing your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: If you look at my class web page, you can get an idea of how we incorporate technology into lesson plans. We [the fifth grade teachers] cover the same curriculum and develop projects together, including how we can get computer applications into the mix. My class web page is called "Curriculum Connections" in grade 5 . The first link is Learning About Alaska Through Literature. After reading Julie of the Wolves by Jean C. George we wanted to know more about Alaska. The stuff on Alaska was done with the HyperStudio program. The class did research on Alaska and we displayed it along with their art work using this program. We do a large unit on Canada. So in our social studies program the students have created their own unique travel magazines for each of the 10 provinces and 2 territories that make up Canada. Each magazine takes the reader on a written and visual tour, learning about the landscape, sights, wildlife, and people. We created a century timeline. I had the students use a program called Timeliner. Students are involved in a memorable time in the history of our nation and the world as participants in the transition from the 20th to the 21st century. They are a part of the history making. To enhance the experience, an in-depth look back over the past century has helped to grasp the incredible growth of our nation. Our timeline reflects the information we have researched and found most significant. They drew their own pictures of a decade in our history and then we scanned their work onto the computer. We also work on similes and metaphors. The students did the writing, saved in as a Word document and used clip art to decorate. It was really cute. Finally, as a bonus we're practicing our writing skills with E-pals in Canada.

Q: How is educational technology impacting student learning in your experience?

A: It’s just about the best motivating tool I’ve experienced in my teaching career. The students really love seeing their work created with computer software—actually, it’s created in their minds and expressed visually through the computer—and seeing it posted to the Internet. They can show their parents and distant relatives and that really excites them.

Q: Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: I took a class or two when it first began, the Excel and I think one that had to do with curriculum incorporation. I’m maxed out on my credits long ago and I pick up a lot of computer applications and useful websites on my own, through professional reading, and, of course, through colleagues.

Q: Have you incorporated technology because you wanted to or because it was part of the district Technology Plan?

A: I think I’d say more because I wanted to, but since it is part of the technology plan and the school is really pushing it, it’s hard not to use the technology.

Q: Do you think that the majority of teachers feel that way—the district wants the technology utilized?

A: Yes, but most of us have been happy to or willing to use the computers. Some of the older teachers don’t really bother with it much, but with last year’s retirement plan, most of the older faculty are gone anyway.

TEACHER INTERVIEW #6 Date: 11/22/02

Teacher background: 5th grade middle school teacher/6 years experience

Q: How familiar are you with government documents or publications regarding technology in public K-12 schools in the U.S.?

A: I'm familiar with New York state standards.

Q: How about national documents such as Bill Clinton's "Getting Students Ready for the 21st Century" or Richard Riley's "E-Learning" or the Dept. of Ed.'s "Educator's Guide to Evaluating Technology?"

A: No, I haven't read any of them.

Q: I've read a lot of publications about using technology in the classroom, but just not those in particular.

Q: How familiar are you with the Mt. Sinai UFSD technology plan?

A: Much more familiar with the national plan. At the last Superintendent's Conference Day we had to come up with our year long project that goes along with the requirements for our grade level in the district tech plan, so we're all pretty familiar with that. This year we'll be doing online portfolios using Power Point or actually any presentation software we choose—and pulling clip art and other information off the Web.

Q: Do you encourage the students to use the Internet

A: Oh yeah, all the time. Why not?

Q: Does the district employ a filter?

A: Yes, I think it's called Fortress, but there's still stuff that gets by. When I was teaching 7th grade computers, and we did research for projects there was some outrageous stuff that came through.

Q: Do you agree with the goal set forth in the district plan? Are they realistic? Why or why not?

A: Yes, and I think that more teachers should be held accountable for living up to the goals outlined in the plan that we're all supposed to reach. They don't hold all the teachers accountable. I came from a district that was really archaic in terms of technology—they had Apple II s in a lab and nothing in the classrooms, nothing. No digital cameras or scanners or anything and then I come here to Mount Sinai and there's four computers in every classroom and a lab in the library, and I thought "Wow, this is great, I'm going to use this." I forced myself to learn it and use it. There are teachers who even though they offered incentives to go to the Technology Academy, a few classes were good for one in-service credit, but they didn't want to go, they didn't want to learn anything new. I think it's wrong –the district spends all this money, it's there, the kids would benefit. Some of the newer teachers, I don't think that they've been trained with the Tech Academy, but some of the older ones just don't want to be bothered, in my opinion. I don't know if they're even doing it this fall.

Q: No, I've already spoken with Ms. X and they have decided to scrap the Technology Academy for the time being.

A: They got no support for it. I took classes and I was an instructor and you'd have two or three people at most.

Q: Per class?

A: Yes

Q: Ms. X said that many teachers had already satisfied their in-service credits . . .

A: Yeah, all of the older teacher have, but they're the ones who are resisting or not incorporating the technology.

Q: Is at that these teachers don't want to redo their lesson plans?

A: It's not even redoing lesson plans—it's just adding something in, some type of educational technology, that is a complement to the lesson. I also think that every teacher should have a web page.

Q: Actually, I brought that up when I spoke with Ms. X (tech coordinator) and the district feels that teacher web pages are not a priority—the goals in the tech plan are, which, as you know, are geared toward the students learning certain applications and skills that are showcased at the end of the year at the Technology Fair.

A: We [the middle school] don't even have a tech fair, actually that's not true—this year we will be having a showcase at the end of the year similar to the elementary school. I hope it changes some teachers in particular. I know one who sits at the computer and sends out junk mail to teachers, you know, here's a funny story—that's all he does. I never see the kids on the computers, just him, on one computer and there's three others. [the teacher we are talking about is a 31 year veteran in the district]

Q: I don't think it's fair to say that all the veteran teachers are not employing the available technology. I spoke with Mrs. Y who has a great showcase of class work and collaborative projects on her web page and she's a veteran teacher. The only thing that I noticed was that the work was not recent. She indicated that teachers in our district don't have the ability to upload their own work.

A: That's the one big problem that I have here. I think that if a teacher has proven that he or she has the ability to create pages and show student progress, post homework and things like that and that she's capable of being discriminatory about what's posted, then I should be allowed to upload it myself and change it on a daily basis. We have to wait for Ms. Z to upload it and she's just one person for the whole district so it can't be done as often as I would like. I resent that I don't have that ability [to upload].

Q: It seems that not giving individual teachers the ability to upload, as you suggest, is not using the district network to its fullest potential—most families in the district, approximately 85% according to a recent survey, have computers.

A: I've gone down to the computer lab with the kids and there's various ranges of what they can do even with computers at home. I have one kid who doesn't have a computer, so it's starting from nothing with him. I'm teaching him how to open Word and how to change the font and someone else wants to learn how to import graphics from the Web. Even though many do have computers at home there's no consistency of ability.

Q: It would be great if they extended the school day an hour or so and it could be devoted to educational technology.

A: [silence and then laughter] Or teachers should be required to incorporate technology throughout the day whenever possible. But I can think of at least 3 teachers who are afraid of technology and they are not going to change. Who you are teamed with or friendly with can make a change. You know I'm teamed with Mrs. X, we came in at the same time, we're both mid-life teachers and she knew nothing about computers and I pulled her into doing more and last year she did her first set of Power Points and got them uploaded. We're doing electronic portfolios this year—I think she's seeing the potential and that it's not that hard. If you have a team partner that uses technology, you're more apt to use it. Like the other two [veteran teachers who are teamed] neither uses it, so they just go on the way they always have and don't use the technology that's available here. Although the one does use the Internet to do the stock market game. And there's a new teacher right next door who's always online. I don't know what he does with the kids, but he finds really useful web resources and is always passing along information.

Q: So, are the goals in the plan realistic?

A: Yes, and teachers should have a web page as well as finish grade level projects and they should do more than that and be held accountable, because as we said, not everyone participates to the minimum level.

Q: How are you incorporating technology in your classroom as required by the district plan? How difficult is it for you? How is it changing your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: I've done some Native American research projects using the Internet and different cultural projects using HyperStudio. We've done slide presentations where each student creates a slide and it's part of a 5 slide group presentation. I also like doing the electronic portfolios that are personal—poetry, artwork, individual profiles. I've always done a class web page. I came in and I didn't know how to do any of it—I had X come up and work with me before school, on free periods, after school. I took some of the Tech Academy classes, went to the library, found online tutorials.

Q: How difficult then is it for you?

A: It's not difficult, it's time consuming.

Q: Has it changed your beliefs or practices?

A: Yes, I guess it has. When I started teaching, I didn't have technology in the district and when I came here there was a lot of technology available so I learned as much as I could and I use it to enhance basic lessons. It's not the technology that drives the project, it's what am I already doing in the classroom and how can technology add to it. Last year we were studying explorers and they had to collect 3 facts about the explorer, from books or the Internet, and write in on index cards and another index card had a picture that they drew or copied and then Ms. Z scanned them into the computer and uploaded them and it became this really cool slide show. Ms. Z and I talked about doing a middle school web club, but since we're both moderators of other clubs that we can't seem to get out of, it hasn't happened. We thought it would be great to have the students be able to go around and collect discs from teachers and upload their web pages for them or even collaborate with them to create teacher or class pages. It would take away the teachers' excuse about not being able to or not having enough time to do web pages.

Q: How is educational technology impacting student learning in your experience?

A: They're more excited and more interested in what you're teaching. The thing about that is that you have to reign that excitement in because they immediately want to jump on the computers. It's hard for them to wait until the right time.

Q: Are you a participant in the Technology Academy or Technology Task Force? If not, why not? If so, how is it affecting your teaching beliefs and practices?

A: Yes I am and I was an academy instructor as well. It was a great thing that the district started especially for teachers who had no computer experience. I was surprised at the lack of interest.

Q: I heard there was a cost involved.

A: $20 that's reasonable and if you take 5 classes you get a credit which is much cheaper than a grad credit but it's about the same cost as another in-service classes.

Q: Finally, have you incorporated technology because you wanted to or because it was required by the district plan?

A: Definitely because I wanted to. If you're interested in it you'll use it and I am. I make the time for it.

Appendix B: Teacher Questionnaire and Results

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Instructional Subject Area:

Years teaching:

Educational level:

Gender:

Age:

On a scale of 1-5 where 1=unfamiliar 2=slightly familiar 3=familiar 4=very familiar 5=expert

HOW FAMILIAR ARE YOU WITH:
1 2 3 4 5

US Govt docs pertaining to the use of
educational technology in the classroom*

The Mt. Sinai Technology Plan

The Mt. Sinai Technology Academy

The Mt. Sinai Technology Task Force

* specifically, "Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge;" "An Educator's Guide to Evaluating the use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms;" and "E-Learning: Putting a World Class Education at the Fingertips of all Children."

On a scale of 1-5 where 1=never 2=rarely 3=sometimes 4= often 5=very often

How often do you incorporate the following into your lesson plan(s)?

Educational Technology Tool

The Internet

Word processing program,

eg. Microsoft Word

Spreadsheets, eg. Microsoft Excel

Database, eg. Microsoft Access

Web page projects or designs,

eg. Microsoft FrontPage

CD ROM applications

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Somewhat Strongly

Agree

I incorporate technology

because it is required by the

district technology plan

I incorporate technology

because I wanted

to do so

I incorporate technology both

because I wanted to do so

and it is required by the plan

High School Results

Group	N	Mean	Median	Mode	Range	% Familiarity
Elementary school teachers	22	1.4	1	1	1-5	28
Middle school teachers	29	1.3	1	1	1-5	26
High school teachers	29	1.7	1	1	1-5	34

	never	rarely	sometimes	often	very often
Elemantary school teachers	0	1	3	10	8
Middle school teachers	0	0	5	6	18
hight school teachers	0	0	0	13	16

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Strongly Agree
I incorporate technology because it is required by the district technology plan	17	41	12	0
I incorporate technology because I wanted to do so	0	0	13	57
I incorporate technology both because I wanted to do so and it is required by the plan	0	0	3	67


HOW FAMILIAR ARE YOU WITH:	1	2	3	4	5

US Govt docs pertaining to the use of educational technology in the classroom*

The Mt. Sinai Technology Plan

The Mt. Sinai Technology Academy

The Mt. Sinai Technology Task Force


How often do you incorporate the following into your lesson plan(s)?

Educational Technology Tool

The Internet

Word processing program, eg. Microsoft Word

Spreadsheets, eg. Microsoft Excel

Database, eg. Microsoft Access

Web page projects or designs, eg. Microsoft FrontPage

CD ROM applications

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Strongly Agree
I incorporate technology because it is required by the district technology plan
I incorporate technology because I wanted to do so
I incorporate technology both because I wanted to do so and it is required by the plan