WestEd Home Our Work Feedback Search

Implementing Technology in Education: Recent Findings from Research and Evaluation Studies


By John Cradler, Far West Laboratory

This article suggests the approach to implement technology based on the authors 25 years of experience in this area, plus the findings of studies related to technology implementation. The approach suggested emphasizes instructional and student needs first and then through planning integrates technology in ways that enhance and extend instructional and learning opportunities. This approach is currently being applied in the implementation of technologies tested as part of the CAETI program to transfer and adapt defense technologies to education.

A. Why is planning a critical element for successful technology implementation?

It has been repeatedly found that careful planning is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of technology and telecommunications in education and training. Lessons about planning for technology have made their way to national guidelines and programs. For example, the national education reform agendas encourage states to have incentives and direction for developing technology and NII application plans. Plans should 1) involve education stakeholders in their design; 2) be guided by education and training needs of learners; 3) specify clear objectives related to national and local education goals; and 4) incorporate technology applications and practices that have been tested for their educational benefits (NCC-TET, 1994).

Technology is rapidly emerging as an important component of teaching and learning and reform in American schools. However, technology is often promoted as the solution for improving learning before teaching and learning needs are even identified. In fact, research consistently shows that technology per se does not make school reform happen (Means, 1993). In order to effectively target technology to support teaching and learning it is necessary to engage in planning at the state, school district, school, and classroom level.

District and school-level planning

A study of the initial implementation of California's state funded technology programs found that technology was not becoming institutionalized because it was often treated as a separate component within the state's education infrastructure. It was initially funded as an "add- on" rather than being integrated into the curriculum and incorporated into the mainstream of instructional programs.

For example, technology applications initially did not appear in state or local district curriculum framework guidelines, were not part of the school improvement initiatives, and often were not considered in school level program evaluations. At the school level teachers were often not involved in decisions about technology applications. Even so, the study showed that technology had a positive impact on teaching and learning when teachers and principals worked together to plan how to focus technology use in the classroom on regular curriculum activities.

The effects were even greater when the development and implementation of a school plan were actively supported by the district (Cradler, 1991). A recent study compared the impact of technology implementation between schools that used varied levels of planning and staff involvement. The results clearly supported the need for careful planning with teacher involvement to produce commitment to sustained integration of technology into teaching. It went on to recommend the State continue to fund technology programs that require local planning rather than distribution of funds on an 'entitlement' basis (Ford, 1993).

Classroom Level Technology Planning

More recently, a major study on the teacher-application of telecommunications and internet resources (the Telemation Project) showed that the systematic approach to implementation was the key to success of the project (Far West Laboratory, 1995). Borrowing upon the findings of the Monterey and Cupertino Model Technology Schools Projects, the Telemation Project took the approach that teachers would only find telecommunications relevant if they had an opportunity to conceptualize and implement a classroom level project or plan for telecommunications use. This approach provided each teacher with a framework that defined the instructional strategies, curriculum objectives, student needs, and assessment strategies, for which the telecommunications resources could support. The result was that each teacher devised a Classroom Telecommunications Intervention Plan (C-TIP). Over 100 C-TIPs have been developed, implemented and are updated and shared with other teachers on line.

Presently the ARPA supported CAETI project is adapting the classroom level planning model with it's Technology Insertion Plans (TIP). This approach has each teacher develop a classroom level plan that focuses on DoDEA curriculum priorities, school level priorities, student needs, instructional resource needs, and expands teaching beyond what could normally be done with the existing text materials. Each plan includes specific applications of the technologies being beta tested through the ARPA-CAETI program.

For example, the Teachers Associate (TA) Technology was used by many of the TIPs as a tool to help the teacher manage and make instructional decisions. The TA links the teacher on demand to curriculum lessons, technology-based resources aligned with their curriculum, student information, schedules, and internet resources. The TIP provided the context or educational environment for using the TA. This planned approach and structure will be used when testing other ARPA technologies in the DoDEA schools.

In summary, systematic planning as an approach to technology implementation provides:

  • a rationale for the technology and related resources
  • the stakeholders get involved in the decision making process
  • a way to promote thinking about the most cost-effective uses of technology
  • assurance that technology applications are aligned with the curriculum
  • help in determining the specific training and assistance needs
  • assurance that existing resources are used in the plan
  • a needed vehicle for procuring funding
  • a method for determining how to evaluate the impact and progress of the technology
  • a vehicle for communicating steps for others to follow adapting the plan
  • a process for coordination with other programs and projects
  • that the teaching addresses the needs of all learners
  • guidelines and a context for the insertion of new technologies
  • software developers with a definition of the technological needs of users

    B. What are the basic steps for applying the planned approach to technology implementation?

    The comprehensive studies of technology application over the past five years on the California Model Technology Schools Projects yielded findings that identified the critical components in school and classroom level technology use planning (Cradler, 1992). The remainder of this chapter describes the minimum components for an effective school level and classroom level technology plan. The planning process described below should be considered when developing, testing, implementing, and evaluating a school-based technology plan.

    1. Convene a school or departmental planning committee. Identify the planning partners to include the teachers, a district office representative, parents, the principal, possible business partners, and a representative from the county office, regional agency, or department of education as appropriate. Most middle schools and high schools are organized by department and develop technology plans by department rather than school-wide. The decision to develop a school-wide versus a departmental plan is a function of the size and organization of the particular school. Effective projects continue to involve advisory groups in the planning as well as for ongoing support and monitoring of the project and revision of the plan when needed. Technology use planning should be part of existing local school planning procedures. This will help to ensure that technology will become integrated into the existing educational program.

    2. Coordinate with existing school and district plans. Identify and review the existing school plans and guidelines for amending such plans. The School Technology Plan (STP) should become an integral part of the existing school plan already required by some programs such as School Improvement Plans (SIP). It has been found that technology plans are short lived if they are not integral to the overall plan and consequently considered a part of the overall school program. This suggests that educators should update the overall school plan to describe the use and coordination of existing as well as planned technology to support or expand the educational objectives of the plan.

    The STP must be consistent with existing or anticipated district level educational and technology planning. Successful technology projects usually implement activities that support the district-wide mission and goals. District support is necessary to implement and continue with district resources after state funding is terminated (Cradler, 1993).

    3. Identify student and school program needs. Review local needs assessment information, resource inventories, school performance and school accreditation reports, and other relevant information, to determine needs for restructuring or expansion with consideration of the application of technology. If time and resources permit, a needs survey should be conducted. The plan should identify the student and staff needs to be addressed by the plan. Needs should be documented by the school staff and be focused on discrepancies between existing and desired conditions for teaching and learning.

    4. Identify available technology-based and support resources. Review the existing uses of technology and media resources at the school and their relationship to the goals and objectives of the existing or emerging school site plan. Existing and planned school and district resources to support the technology plan should be considered and described in the plan. Often plans are developed without consideration for the technology that already exists in the school or district. Also, plans sometimes budget for staff services that could be provided by the existing regional agencies or even the school district office.

    In addition to local resources, become familiar with the existing state, regional, and national resources, such as those provided by regional support agencies and demonstration programs. It is critical that educators are aware of the resources and possible uses of technology before they engage in intensive planning.

    5. Integrate the school-wide technology planning with the curriculum. The STP should describe how the use of technology will align with and expand district and state curriculum and instructional objectives. Technology should be viewed as a tool to expand opportunities for learning beyond what can already be provided.

    A recent study to determine effective technology applications concludes that "any technology integration requires that teachers engage in rethinking, reshifting, and reshaping their curriculum" (Means, 1993). The planning process should provide the opportunity for educators to become aware of and discuss the possibilities for current and emerging technologies to expand and enhance teaching - it should allow teachers the opportunity to collaboratively construct new visions for teaching and learning.

    6. Objectives and Activities. A plan should describe school-wide objectives with related activities that describe how technology applications directly relate to instruction, curriculum enhancement, and the school program. The objectives should be directly linked to the documented learner and teacher needs. Studies consistently show that plans which include clearly stated activities were more often used by staff as a guide for implementing technology. Clearly stated objectives make it possible to assess the level of implementation of the plan. After careful review of the instructional needs that can be met by the addition of technology, revise the objectives for the existing school plan, or add new objectives to incorporate the intended use of technology at the school site and in the targeted classrooms. The objectives for technology applications should be aligned with the district priorities and the district should support the school's objectives.

    7. Classroom Level Technology Intervention. In addition to school or departmental objectives and activities, the STP should describe activities planned for each classroom. Research and experience shows that planning is most effective when it is extended to the classroom and describes what teachers do to implement their part of the plan. Linking planning to the classroom level ensures that teachers will have a clear vision of what they will do to implement their part of the STP.

    The Monterey Model Technology Schools Project with the assistance of Educational Support Systems, devised a school-and classroom-based planning model known as the Classroom Intervention Plan (CIP) to ensure classroom linkage to the school plan (Cradler, 1989). The CIP is currently a working plan developed by teachers to target the use of technology toward the attainment of clearly defined classroom-based student and staff objectives. Special forms were devised for recording the classroom planning information. As mentioned earlier, the CIP planning process was adapted for the ARPA CAETI project and is called a Technology Insertion Plan (TIP). The TIP forms were computerized and incorporated into the Teachers Associate (described earlier). The TIP technology prompts the teacher and links the teacher to resources needed to develop the TIP.

    The classroom planning steps address:
    1. Student needs and related instructional priorities and needs
    2. Classroom-specific instructional activities to meet the needs
    3. Technology-based applications to support the instructional activities
    4. Individualized staff development for the teacher
    5. Classroom-specific performance-based assessment methods
    6. Hardware, connectivity, software, and other resources needed
    7. School management commitment to ensure that the time and resources needed to successfully implement the CIP are provided for the teacher
    8. Specific budget needed for the teacher to implement the plan

    Evaluations consistently found that the classroom planning process:

  • increased teacher commitment
  • sustained increased levels of technology use
  • improved coordination of resources for the project
  • focused resources on the educational needs of students
  • helped teachers determine what technology to implement
  • provided a way for teachers to communicate about the project to other educators and to
  • parents

    The ideal and effective school plan should be a composite of classroom plans designed to accomplish school-wide objectives. School planning that does not engage and produce classroom plans often results in school plans that are filed away and not used. Part of the school planning process must involve assisting teachers to conceptualize and develop their classroom technology plans. For details on how to design and implement school planning readers are encouraged to obtain Destination Tomorrow, An Atlas of Technology Use in Education, produced by the Monterey Model Technology Schools Project (see the Resources Section ).

    8. Staff Development. The STP should describe the staff development and follow-up assistance necessary for successful implementation of planned activities. The STP staff development activities should largely be based on the CIP-determined staff development activities. As teachers develop their classroom level plans the school-level staff development program can be designed.

    It must directly support the activities indicated in the classroom plans. Available staff development days made possible by school improvement programs funded by the state or federal programs and school development plans should be allocated to support the implementation of the STP. Research continues to show that staff development matched to the needs of the teacher is a critical factor for the success of any project.

    9. Prepare an Evaluation Plan. The STP should provide a general description of the process for evaluating the project. The process should include procedures for monitoring, implementing, collecting information of student outcomes, and assessing the effects on teaching and instructional practices. Make every effort to incorporate evaluation methods that are consistent with the assessment program already utilized in the school, department, and district should be incorporated. Many schools are adapting and devising performance-based assessment methods that mirror the instructional tasks. For additional information on performance-based assessments, contact the California Assessment Collaborative (CAC) and consult the Educator's Guide for Evaluating Educational Technology Programs. Evaluation provides the necessary information to help convince a future funding agency that the project or plan is worth additional funding. Ongoing evaluation fine-tunes a program and guides any 'midcourse' corrections to keep the project on target and within stated objectives.

    10. Develop a STP Budget and funding strategy. Identify adequate funding for the plan and involve the school and district administration developing the STP budget. The STP should provide a budget that includes sufficient funding to provide release time for teachers to implement the plan and participate in needed in service training. The budget should describe all sources of funding ranging from the general school budget to any special grants or donations. The study showed that the least effective plans were those that did not allow enough funding for staff development and release time. Decide whether the potential technology use justifies the development of a grant application for outside funding. If the plan and its needs are clearly documented, and local resources are lacking, consider applying for private or public grant funding. There are many sources of funding often are overlooked. For example, many businesses are interested in forming partnerships with schools and districts to support their application of technology in the classroom. Such business should be identified early in the planning process when resources are being identified.

    11. Implement, monitor, and revise the plan. When the plan is implemented, the school site council or planning committee should provide support and monitoring of the project as it is implemented. The STP should be viewed and treated as a part of the overall school plan and be implemented, monitored, and evaluated within the context of the existing school-based program or plan. The evaluation and assessment information should be used for making mid-course corrections and to report progress to the committee, school and district staff, and other stakeholders for the project.

    Within the context of the school plan, work with the committee to make necessary adjustments to the STP that are suggested by the evaluation. Planning should be an active and ongoing process. The planning committee must provide the support and advocacy needed to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of those involved in implementing the plan. Progress of the school and classroom-level technology plans should be documented and systematically reported to the board and used as justification for requesting funding from the district, the state or other sources.

    C. Besides the planning approach, what are some other important and more general considerations to take when implementing technology?

    Experience shows that when doing technology planning several factors must be constantly considered. These are derived largely from the documented experiences of the model technology schools in California.

  • Teachers must have a reason to use the technology; it is important to promote teacher-development of projects or plans were teachers can apply technology to meet particular instructional and student needs identified within such projects or plans.
  • Curricula must drive technology; technology should not dictate curricula.
  • Check out what other schools have done-both successes and failures. Seeing a system in use makes it easier to envision in your own school, an you can learn from the mistakes of others. This is the reason that the Model Technology are and important resource. Many states and businesses support model technology schools as resources for planning.
  • Don't accept materials or hardware that do not fit with the curriculum and technology plans. Haphazard acquisitions or computers here and there will not bring the school up-to-date technologically. Technology involves interfacing with other classrooms, libraries and networks.
  • Training teachers is critical and ongoing. Set aside time and money for formal training classes as well as opportunities for teachers to discuss discoveries or problems with their colleagues. Training should account for at least one third of the budget allocated for the educational technology program or initiative.
  • Technology planning is never-ending. A technology plan cannot be developed and the technology committee then disbanded. As the project is implemented, as technology changes, as the school grows, the plan must change.
  • The technology plan must include maintenance, trouble-shooting and network management.
  • Acquiring technology is not a matter of plugging in a computer. It will affect all aspects of the school culture, from architecture to interpersonal relations. Include the whole picture in your plan and training program.
  • Technology requires community support and involvement. Money, inkind services, and training must come from all parts of the community and will cross traditional boundaries.
  • Administrative support and involvement is critical to the successful integration of technology; Studies constantly show that the commitment and interest of the principal is the most critical factor for successful implementation of any school innovation-especially technology.

    D. How is the planning approach relevant at the State and National level?

    Planning for technology use has become the emphasis at the state and national levels. The reason for planning at these levels is similar to the local level. National planning is necessary to ensure that technology programs among the various Federal agencies is coordinated. For example, it has been found that many of the programs initiated by the Departments of Education, Commerce, Defense, NASA, NSF, and others overlap with almost identical objectives. It has also been found that Federal technology initiatives do not take into consideration the support of National Education Goals.
    Other issues include duplicative administration of grants programs, fragmented evaluations of national programs, and general lack of coherence within and between Federal agencies with respect to technology. Another problem is that the Federal programs sometimes duplicate various state efforts to plan and implement technology in education and training. School districts are sometimes confused with state and federal guidelines and grant programs that seem to do the same thing with separate sets of bureaucratic requirements.

    E. What can be done at the National Level to provide effective and planned implementation of technology across the country?
    In the past two years Federal legislation was introduced to establish a National Educational Technology Plan. This plan would be developed by the recently established U.S. Office of Educational Technology. S. 1040 (Bingaman, Cochran, Kennedy) initiated legislation later to become part of the Improving Americas Schools Act, that would mandate this plan and would authorize funding for programs that would support implementation of the national plan. These programs all involve planning. The Technology Challenge Grants require education agencies to work with business partners to develop detailed plans for the innovative development and testing of technologies that would clearly increases opportunities for learning that supports the National Education Standards. The Regional Technology Centers would help states develop and implement state and local district plans that integrate technology and telecommunications into the state educational improvement goals. Goals 2000 requires all states to develop State Technology Plans that support their Goals 2000 Improvement Plans. The common theme among all of the programs is the planned approach that include evaluation that holds the programs accountable for meeting the objectives set forth in these plans.

    While these planned programs are important, it was still necessary to better coordinate and leverage the technology resources and investments across the various Federal programs. The White House initiated a program that would bring together the 10 major Federal agencies so that educational technology initiatives could coordinated. A high level committee established the Interagency Technology Office (ITO). This office is staffed by at least one representative from each of the Federal agencies to include Education, Defense, Commerce, NASA, NSF, Labor, and others. It will work closely with the U.S. Office of Educational Technology to design and implement the U.S. Educational Technology Plan in a coordinated fashion. A major potential of this office is the enabling of DOD and its contractors to work with educational in the collaborative utilization and adaptation of defense-developed training technologies to support education. Education, alone cannot scratch the surface when it comes to the technological capability of the DOD. This synergistic relationship can help build technology in education and can help DOD build technology that expands technology beyond training and into the higher order decision making demanded of military officials and planners. Other Federal resources that can support state and local technology integration include the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the Eisenhower Math/Science Clearinghouse and the ERIC Clearinghouses providing electronic access to important information to support technology planning. The Regional Education Laboratories and Centers also serve as clearinghouses to support planning and research related to technology integration.

    These are a few of the new attempts to provide for a National educational technology infrastructure that is coordinated, efficient, and responsive the needs of the states. There are many obstacles facing this effort such as uncertain budget to implement this planned national effort.

    F. What can be done at the State Level to provide effective and planned implementation of technology in the school districts and regional agencies?

    Most of the states have developed technology plans or telecommunications infrastructure plans. A recent review of the plans shows that often they are not implemented. This is most often due to the lack of funding combined with the state level leadership needed to make such plans living and working documents that educators and policy makers actually take seriously. California developed a state plan in 1992, that was only partially implemented. This plan was never sufficiently funded. Legislation was enacted to support this plan in part. The realization that California is now 51st among the states in terms of the ratio of students to computers has caused a recent surge of interest and action by the state to start taking planning seriously. Now the Governor has increased the States educational technology budget by $15 million. However, some of the uses of this fund, such as the refurbishing and donating of used computers, are not viewed as consistent with the earlier technology plan. The point is that without strong leadership, a state (or the Federal Government), or the school, cannot implement a technology plan. However, without a plan or road map, the leadership for technology implementation can easily lead the schools into using technologies that are inappropriate for the instructional and learning needs of the students.

    Other state level actions for technology planning are to encourage school districts and consortia when applying for Federal grants such as the Goals 2000 Subgrants, to integrate technology into these projects and programs. Also states should build technology into their state curriculum frameworks and instructional materials adoption process. State assessment systems should consider the application of technology in teaching and learning as part of the learning assessment task inventory. When states conduct local site reviews of their sponsored programs and initiatives they should develop and apply criteria and indicators that incorporate the appropriate instructional uses of technology. States should also establish Interagency Technology Offices that coordinate and leverage telecommunications resources within the state. States should take seriously their Goals 2000 state planning opportunities in that funding is provided to support this planning process.

    The authors of this document have developed state planning guidelines now being used by several states to inform development of their Goals 2000 State Technology Plans. These guidelines incorporate many of the planning steps mentioned in this document at the state level along with a comprehensive set of guidelines and checklists to facilitate development of state technology plans.

    G. Summary and Recommendations

    The recommended implementation approach for integrating or inserting technology must focus on comprehensive planning that involves all of the stakeholders. Critical factors include establishing a vision for the plan, utilizing existing and emerging resources, basing technology decisions on curriculum and instructional needs, focusing on student needs, and providing for local staff development and follow-up assistance. This chapter provides a detailed and research-based model for technology use planning that should be considered. The approach for implementing technology emphasizes a series of operational steps for integrating technology into the existing instructional program which include:1) establishing a stakeholder planning committee, 2) coordinating with existing plans, 3) identification of student and program needs, 4)identification of available resources to support the plan, 5) curriculum integration, 6) establishing goals and objectives, 7)developing related classroom-based plans, 8) staff development, 9) evaluation, 10) budget and funding strategies, and 11) implementation strategies.

    It must be emphasized that school and district plans can only be implemented if teachers are developing and implementing classroom plans or projects that directly support the objectives of the school and district technology plans. The document also discusses the planning approach at the state and national levels. The overall recommendations for the basic approach suggested for educational technology planners, developers, and implementers are:

    1. Involve educators in the development of individualized instructional applications of technology as part of the overall school level planning process.
    2. Ensure that local insertion of technology is driven by the curricular and instructional needs of the school site.
    3. Coordinate all technology insertion with the existing national, state, school district, and school level educational reform priorities.
    4. Ensure that evaluation of the approaches used in technology implementation are evaluated and that evaluation be used to inform improvements in the program.
    5. Developers of technology-based resources must conduct alpha and beta testing at school sites within the context of the school and classroom instructional plans.
    6. States should develop and implement technology plans that leverage and coordinate technology-based resources within and between state agencies in ways that pool and target such resources to support the local implementation of technology.
    7. Federal government should develop a national technology plan that coordinates Federal agency resources to help build the capacity of states to develop, fund, and implement their own technology plans.
    8. At the federal, state, and local levels, planners and implementers must be proactive about procuring new, and leveraging existing funding and resources to actually implement plans and to recognize that plans are necessary pre-requisites to obtaining funding and resources.

    Bibliography


    Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12. National Center for Education Statistics (1995).
    Anderson, Ronald. State Technology Activities Related to Teachers. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (November, 1994).
    Apple Education Research Series: Effectiveness Reports (1994). Apple Computer, Inc., 20525 Mariani Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.
    Becker, Henry. "Analysis and Trends in School Use of New Information Technologies," Reported Market Penetration and Estimated Simultaneous Student Accessibility for Various Electronic Technologies. (NEA Communications Survey). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (March, 1994).
    Cradler, J.D. (1987). Policy Recommendations for Program Improvement with Educational Technology in California Schools. Redwood City, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, San Mateo County Office of Education, 333 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063.
    Cradler, J.D. (1992). Comprehensive Study of Educational Technology Programs in California Authorized From 1984-1992. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
    Cradler, J.D., et.al.. Monterey Model Technology Schools: Cumulative Research and Evaluation Report 1987-92. Hillsborough, CA: Educational Support Systems (1993)
    Cradler, John and Bridgforth, Elizabeth. "Comparison of Educational Technology and Telecommunications Plans", Byting Back: Policies to Support the Use of Technology in Education. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1994).
    Cradler, John and Bridgforth, Elizabeth. State and Federal Educational Technology Programs and Funding Sources for California. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (1994).
    Cradler, John and Bridgforth, Elizabeth. Technology Planning to Support Education Reform: Information and Resources to Support the Integration of Technology into State Planning for Educational Reform under Goals 2000. Executive Summary. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (1994).
    Cradler, John and Yrchik, John. The National Information Infrastructure: Requirements for Education and Training. Washington, DC: National Coordinating Committee on Technology in Education and Training (NCC-TET) (1994).
    Cradler, John. "Planning for Technology Applications in Education", Monograph #6. San Diego, CA: California League of Middle Schools (1994).
    Cradler, John. Policy Guidelines and the NII with Suggestions and Actions for States. Honolulu, HI: Education Commission of the States National Forum and Annual Meeting (1994).
    Cradler, John. Summary of Current Research and Evaluation Findings on Technology in Education. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (1994).
    Cradler, John. "Technology: Past Present and Future," THRUST for Educational Leadership. Sacramento, CA: Association for California School Administrators (June/July, 1994).
    Cradler, John. The Information Highway is Bypassing America's Schools. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory (1995).
    Crawford, Kilian. "The Passive-Aggressive Paradox of On-Line Discourse," Educational Digest (1994).
    David, Jane L. "Realizing the Promise of Technology: The Need for Systemic Education Reform" Using Technology to Support Education Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research (1994).
    Dwyer, D. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We've Learned, Education Leadership (April 1994).
    Eastin, Delaine. "Technology Agenda for California Schools." C.U.E. NewsLetter, Vol. 17, Number 3 (May/June 1994).
    Equality and Technology. Quality Education Data, Inc. (1995).
    Ford, K. California's Educational Technology Grants: Site-Based Grantmaking as a Policy Strategy. Palo Alto, CA Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University (1993).
    Hadley, Martha and Sheingold, Karen. Accomplished Teachers -- Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice. Bank Street College of Education Center for Children and Technology (1990).
    Hadley, Martha and Sheingold, Karen. Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education (September, 1990).
    Henriquez, Andres and Honey, Margaret. Telecommunications and K-12 Educators: Findings from a National Survey. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education (1993).
    Knapp, M.S.; Shields, P.M.; & Turnbull, B.J. Academic Challenge for the Children of Poverty. Summary report for the U.S. Department of Education. Menlo Park: SRI International (1992).
    Little, Judith Warren, et.al. Staff Development in California, Public and Personal Investments, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices. Berkeley, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education (1987).
    Market Data Retrieval. Education and Technology 1993: A Survey of the K-12 Market. Shelton, CT: MDR (1993).
    Means, Barbara and Olson, Kerry. "The Link Between Technology and Authentic Learning," Educational Leadership (1994).
    Means, Barbara, et.al. Using Technology to Support Education Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research (1993).
    Networks for Goals 2000 Reform: Bringing the Internet to K-12 Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)
    Purnell, Sue. Summary of U.S. Department of Education Online Discussions for National Technology Plan, Question 1: Staff Development Issues. RAND Corporation (1950)
    Sewell, Bill. Educational Technology: Student Empowerment or Remote Control. Senior Thesis: Pomona College (1995).
    Schofield, Janet. Computers and Classroom Culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (in press).
    School Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century. U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/HEHS-95-95).
    Sivin-Kachala, Jay and Bialo, Ellen. Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, 1990-1994. Washington, DC: Software Publishers Association (1994).
    Sparks, Dennis. "A Paradigm Shift in Staff Development" Education Week. (March, 1994).
    TERC. Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications (contractor report). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (May, 1994).
    The Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University, http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ILT/ILTpapers.html#top.
    Tierney, J.R., et al. Computer acquisition: A longitudinal study of the Influence of High Computer Access on Students' Thinking, Learning, and Interactions. ACOT Report #16. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc. (1992).
    Towards Linking Both Sides of the Desk. The American Electronic Association and the Center for Telecommunications Management, University of Southern California (1995).
    United States Education and Instruction through Telecommunications (USE IT). Council of Chief State School Officers, (1995).
    Wallais, Claudia. "The Learning Revolution", Time, Special Issue, Volume 145 (Spring, 1995).
    What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (June, 1991).