<div id="article">
<h2 id="article_title">
Implementing State-Level Technological Literacy Policy in
Rural Pennsylvania
</h2>
<div id="article_author">
Jeffrey A. Stone
</div>
<p>
Pennsylvania State University<br>
200 University Drive<br>
Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972<br>
(570) 385-6267<br>
stonej@psu.edu
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
INTRODUCTION
</h3>
<p>
The need for a technologically literate workforce is a
defined public problem in the United States.
Consequently, federal and state governments have been
actively funding policies designed to build technological
literacy or so-called "21st Century Skills" among K-12
students. The lack of a uniform definition for
technological literacy, an absence of student assessment,
and the decentralized nature of the K-12 system have made
it difficult to determine if these policies and programs
(federal and state-level) have been effective. The study
discussed in this article uses a mixed-methods approach
to examine the implementation of one state-level
technological literacy policy: Pennsylvania's Classrooms
for the Future (CFF) program.
</p>
<p>
Public education represents the largest public enterprise
in the United States, both in terms of public investment
and bureaucracy. Given the complex, loosely coupled, and
diverse nature of the educational system, investigations
of educational policy implementation require a
consideration of street-level characteristics and
environmental context. Efforts to build technological
literacy in public schools require understanding and
support from so-called "street-level bureaucrats"; i.e.,
the teachers and administrators responsible for policy
implementation. Existing implementation research suggests
that successful implementation requires street-level
attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors commensurate with
policy goals.
</p>
<p>
Pennsylvania's CFF program has involved over $150 million
in state expenditures, but little is known about how the
policy is actually being implemented. The purpose of this
study is to begin filling in this information gap by
analyzing how CFF is implemented in one Pennsylvania
Intermediate Unit (IU). This study focuses on the
implementing agents - school district teachers and
administrators. The attitudes, behavior, and perceptions
of street-level implementers are recognized as being of
fundamental importance to policy implementation. Given
that the CFF program intends to make a dramatic shift in
public education practices, consideration of street-level
context and implementer characteristics is critical to
understanding CFF implementation. The fundamental
question addressed by this study is as follows: How are
state-level technological literacy policies implemented
in context?
</p>
<p>
This educational policy implementation study investigates
the local-level policy context, outputs (activities) and
implementer characteristics (attitudes, perceptions, and
behaviors) as they apply to the CFF program. This study
uses a modified "bottom-up"-style approach to policy
implementation research by investigating a specific
educational policy through the lens of street-level
bureaucrats (teachers) and public managers (school and
district administrators) with considerations of
environmental context. The information obtained from this
study is expected to provide insight into: (1) how a
state-level technological literacy policy is implemented
in context, and (2) how the attitudes, behavior, and
perceptions of street-level implementers and public
managers affect the implementation of technological
literacy policies.
</p>
<p>
First, the article examines the conceptual and practical
background of technological literacy and related policies
in the United States, with a special focus on
Pennsylvania and the CFF program. The article then
proceeds to describe a research design used for
investigating the implementation of CFF in a set of eight
school districts. Finally, the results of this study are
reported and discussed.
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
BACKGROUND
</h3>
<p>
There is no single definition of <em>technological
literacy</em>. The definitions are said to be constantly
evolving due to rapid technological change (Patterson,
2005). A commonly held misconception is that
technological literacy equates to simply the ability to
use computers or other information technologies
proficiently (Weber, 2005). While the use and application
of computers and information technology is a critical
component, technological literacy is an educational
outcome that involves more than just computer-based
abilities. Technological literacy includes "the ability
to use, manage, understand, and assess technology"
(Emeagwali, 2004) and is said to involve three
interrelated dimensions: knowledge, ways of
thinking/acting, and capabilities. These dimensions are
intended to permit individuals to make informed and
intelligent decisions about technology and the world in
general, thus enabling them to be productive members of
modern society (Pearson & Young, 2002).
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
The 21st Century Skillset
</h3>
<p>
The traditional staples of literacy - reading, writing,
and arithmetic skills - are necessarily foundations for
technological literacy, as is the ability to proficiently
use information and computer technologies. Technological
literacy can be considered a new form of literacy that
reflects the complexity of the Information Age and the
global economy. The aptitudes that make an individual
technologically literate are often called "21st Century
Skills." These skills are based on the ability to use,
manage, interpret, validate, and synthesize information.
In the 21st century, information is increasingly
consumed, synthesized, and disseminated via electronic
means. The proficient use of information and computer
technologies is therefore a necessity for both academic
and professional success. Technological literacy sees
information technologies as only one element used to
solve real-world problems. Modern problems may be simple
or complex; span disciplinary, geographic, and cultural
boundaries; and necessitate collaboration, creativity,
and innovation. Technical skills must therefore be
complemented with traditional "soft skills" such as
creativity, cultural awareness, and leadership in order
to effectively solve real-world problems. The modern
conception of technological literacy therefore stresses
technical, cognitive, and interpersonal skills rather
than simply the memorization of knowledge. A list of
these "21st Century Skills" can be found in Table 1.
</p><img src="https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/download/2755/version/2001/3536/12822/table1.png" class="article_image" width="580"
height="238" alt="table 1">
<div class="image_caption">
Table 1: 21st Century Skills Components.
</div>
<p>
Fundamental to the concept of technological literacy is
the ability to think critically and solve problems. Such
skills are important as computerization has raised the
demand for these non-routine abilities (The Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, 2008). Real-world problems are
often open-ended, abstract, multidisciplinary, and
require innovative solutions. A technologically literate
individual would have the ability to create and/or
identify innovative solutions to these problems. The
problem-solving process would be enabled by information
and computer technologies and would necessarily consider
the multiple stakeholders, potential effects, and the
issues (social, political, cultural, economic, and
technical) that impact the problem. Solutions would
necessarily be communicated using multiple modes (e.g.,
oral, written) and multiple media. The modern workplace
is said to place a premium on these "portable" skills, as
well as the ability to apply critical judgment to a
situational analysis (Wallis & Steptoe, 2006).
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Foundations of Technological Literacy
</h3>
<p>
Technological literacy can be thought of as an
amalgamation of other theoretical and applied notions of
modern literacy. The ability to use, assess, and distill
a large amount of information is a critical component of
the problem-solving process. The term <em>information
fluency</em> is often used to describe this component of
technological literacy. Information fluency represents
the intersection of information literacy, computer
literacy, and critical thinking (O'Hanlon, 2002).
<em>Information literacy</em> focuses on the acquisition,
generation, evaluation, and utilization of information.
Information literacy encompasses a basic knowledge of
computers, including the functional use of application
software and Internet search capabilities (Wen &
Shih, 2006; Murray et al., 2007). <em>Computer
literacy</em> has evolved from the original emphasis on
computer applications to a focus on the use of
information technologies with critical understanding
(Hoffman & Vance, 2005). Another term, <em>media
literacy</em>, has also intersected with information
fluency. Media literacy involves the ability to evaluate
and critically assess information products for bias and
accuracy (Minkel, 2002). Traditional sources of
information have been replaced with more visual,
multimedia sources, often with little or no editorial
control. Media literacy emphasizes the social
construction of information and advocates the skills
necessary to identify the relationships between
information, power, and populations (Kellner & Share,
2007).
</p>
<p>
A final aspect of technological literacy involves
personal and workplace productivity skills. This includes
so-called <em>emotional intelligence</em> and
interpersonal skills, as well as time management and the
ability to adapt to changing priorities and circumstances
(Wallis & Steptoe, 2006). The emphasis on teamwork
and the geographic dispersion of many industries means
that problem-solving is often collaborative and
multicultural in nature. Coordination, communication, and
leadership skills are therefore essential (Wallis &
Steptoe, 2006; The Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
2008). Technologically literate individuals must be
comfortable in team situations, knowledgeable about other
cultures, and be able to communicate in multiple media
and languages. Technological literacy also emphasizes the
need for lifelong learning; the rapidly changing nature
of technology, industries, and geopolitical realities
means that adaptation is an essential skill in the modern
workplace.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Technological Literacy in the United States: Shortfalls
and Consequences
</h3>
<p>
A number of studies (e.g., O'Hanlon, 2002; Stone &
Madigan, 2007; Hilberg & Meiselwitz, 2008) have
raised concerns that K-12 graduates reach the university
level with insufficient technological literacy skills.
Technological literacy has become an implicit expectation
that public schools, colleges, and universities have for
their students. Today's recent K-12 graduates are viewed
as <em>digital natives</em>, proficient with information
and computer technologies and having the personalities,
learning styles, and communications commensurate with a
connected society (Prensky, 2001; Hoffman & Vance,
2005). Research confirms that information and computer
technologies are integral to the daily lives of many of
these students (O'Hanlon, 2002; Hilberg & Meiselwitz,
2008).
</p>
<p>
However, recent evidence suggests that while information
and computer technology plays a large part in students'
lives, technology usage does not necessarily translate
into being technologically literate. A study by the
Educational Testing Service suggests that students use
computers heavily for communication tasks (e.g., e-mail,
social networking, instant messaging) but lack the
problem-solving and advanced software skills necessary to
use computers in a technologically literate manner and,
thus, achieve academic and professional success (Murray
et al., 2007; Hilberg & Meiselwitz, 2008). Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
assessments of 15- year-olds across 40 countries through
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
in 2006 showed U.S. students as scoring below the OECD
average in both science and mathematics. These
assessments measure the inquiry-based skills considered
fundamental to technological literacy (Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007).
</p>
<p>
The technological literacy of K-12 and collegiate
graduates is of fundamental importance to U.S. national
security, economic and otherwise. For example, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (2007) reports that Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers
will experience some of the largest salary and employment
growth over the next 10 years. If the U.S. cannot produce
STEM graduates with the necessary skills to enter this
workforce, the U.S. national economy will suffer. Recent
statistics have indicated that the number of STEM degrees
granted in the United States has been in steady decline
and is not keeping pace with the growth of STEM-related
jobs (National Science Board, 2006, Still, 2009). These
factors, coupled with comparatively poor STEM literacy
among K-12 students, raises concerns that the U.S. is
losing its competitive edge and its economic security
(Stake & Mares, 2001). The global economy means that
American workers are competing for jobs with workers in
countries that invest heavily in technology education
(e.g., India, China). OECD data suggests that performance
on the PISA assessments is correlated with the level of
GDP growth, further underscoring the importance of the
"21st Century Skills" found in technological literacy. To
produce the knowledge workers of tomorrow, schools must
produce technologically literate students today.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Educational Policy and Technological Literacy
</h3>
<p>
Public policies at both the federal and state levels have
begun to address the issue of how to build technological
literacy among K-12 students. The federal government
invests heavily in public education, both in terms of
funding and policy construction. The U.S. Department of
Education, the National Science Foundation, and other
federal agencies fund, evaluate, direct, and otherwise
guide public STEM education to the tune of approximately
$3 billion per year. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB), though primarily designed to enact
standards-based reform in public education, mandates
technological literacy for eighth grade students. The
NCLB also initiated the Enhancing Education through
Technology program to provide a federal source of funding
for K-12 technology, though the program was discontinued
in 2011 (Devaney, 2011). The recent <em>National
Education Technology Plan</em> has also reaffirmed the
need for more integrated use of educational technology in
K-12 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Efforts by
policymakers to build technological literacy into the
curriculum have been complicated by a several factors -
the lack of a uniform definition for technological
literacy, the lack of systematic assessment data, the
myriad state standards and local-level curricula, and a
dearth of policy leadership at the federal level.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
<em>The States as Policy Innovators</em>
</h3>
<p>
The individual states have been the primary policy actors
in building technological literacy among K-12 students.
States have been working to share practices, to form a
common agreement on what technological literacy actually
means, and to devise the best methods of assessment.
Despite the federal mandate of technologically literate
eighth grade students, evidence supporting progress in
this area is almost nonexistent. The overall lack of
assessment has two main causes. First, the specific
reporting requirements for this mandate have not been
defined by the U.S. Department of Education, leaving many
states hesitant to invest in assessment tools for
technological literacy. This is especially true as NCLB
has already imposed substantial data collection,
reporting, and assessment burdens on the states for other
subjects. Second, the lack of a federal definition of
technological literacy has led to a myriad of competing
standards for technological literacy (e.g., the
International Society for Technology in Education,
International Technology Education Association).
</p>
<p>
One method by which states and local school districts
have attempted to build technological literacy into the
K-12 curriculum is through so-called "one-to-one"
programs. These programs provide a laptop to every
student in the hopes of encouraging teachers to build
instructional processes more appropriate for teaching
21st Century Skills. These programs use technology to
encourage fundamental changes in traditional teacher and
student roles. The shift from traditional pedagogical
methods to more collaborative, inquiry-based approaches
creates a partnership of sorts in the student-teacher
relationship. Students assume more responsibility for
their learning and work in teams to solve complex,
real-world problems. Students benefit through increases
in collaborative learning, individualized instruction,
and interdisciplinary experiences, as well as increasing
self-esteem, respect, and self-confidence. Teachers see
their roles shift to facilitator, coordinator, and
instructional designer. Expected benefits for teachers
are the acquisition of new technological and pedagogical
skills and an improved classroom climate (McGhee &
Kozma, 2003; Fairman, 2004). Other benefits are thought
to be a decrease in disciplinary problems and an increase
in academic achievement (Bebell, 2005). Many of these
programs include funding for both equipment and teacher
training.
</p>
<p>
Transforming educational practice and learning outcomes
is inherently complex, but there is anecdotal evidence
that one-to-one programs can have positive impacts. One
example of an apparently successful one-to-one program
can be found in the state of Maine, which implemented the
Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) in 2002. This
pioneering one-to-one program targeted all seventh- and
eighth-grade students in the state. As of 2007 the
program had reached all Maine middle schools, with 37,000
students participating (Clark, 2007). The MLTI program
was approved by the state legislature in 2002 and was
renewed in 2006. Formal evaluations have been
overwhelmingly positive, citing the aforementioned
benefits of one-to-one programs (Fairman, 2004; Garthwait
& Weller, 2004).
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
<em>Pennsylvania's Classroom for the Future Program</em>
</h3>
<p>
Pennsylvania's CFF program was designed to increase the
ability of Pennsylvania's K-12 graduates to compete in
the global economy. The CFF program had two key
components. First, the state offered complete funding for
the purchase of laptops and software to eligible high
schools and technical schools across Pennsylvania.
Second, the state provided teachers with the professional
development, training, and technical support necessary to
fully take advantage of technology within the classroom
using modern instructional "best practices." The CFF
program places an emphasis on the aforementioned change
in instructional processes and learning methodologies, as
well as a change in classroom roles. The goal of the CFF
program was to create "environments for deeper cognitive
development through inquiry, real and relevant
project-based learning, and differentiated instruction"
and to enable Pennsylvania students to acquire the 21st
century skills they need (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2009).
</p>
<p>
Implementation of the CFF program began in 2006-2007. The
program was implemented in 447 school districts as of
2009. More than 140,000 laptops were purchased via the
program, resulting in an estimated participation of
500,000 high school students as of 2009. All eligible
schools must teach courses in "core" subject areas (Math,
Science, Language Arts, and Social Studies) and be
accountable to the state via NCLB requirements. Eligible
schools were funded through a competitive application
process. Schools that participate in CFF are provided
with funding for laptops, software, teacher training and
professional development, and supporting equipment.
Funding is also provided for an on-site "coach" to assist
teachers in the use of equipment and software. The
Pennsylvania Department of Education also provides
Web-based resources to enhance curriculum development and
instruction (Wagner, 2008).
</p>
<p>
Actual state expenditures for the CFF program totaled
$155 million by the end of the 2008-2009 school year. The
staggered implementation of the program resulted in only
30 districts and one vocational school being fully funded
as of 2008. The other 417 participating districts were at
various stages of funding and implementation (Wagner,
2008). The 2009-2010 Pennsylvania state budget did not
provide any additional funds for CFF, though additional
funding was available in some circumstances through the
American Reinvestment &amp; Recovery Act. Preliminary
evaluation reports from the Pennsylvania State University
noted the successes of the program (e.g., Peck et al.,
2009). High school teachers involved in the program were
found to be more energized and had a greater appreciation
for the value of technology in their instruction. Lecture
time was reduced as students engaged in more group-based,
problem-based learning activities. Students were found to
be more engaged and teachers were excited by the program
(Wagner, 2008).
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Investigating the Implementation of CFF
</h3>
<p>
The enormity of the K-12 system, the de-centralized
nature of the public education system, and sometimes
competing educational priorities (i.e., NCLB) make
technological literacy programs a particularly complex
educational policy issue. The slow development of federal
guidance and funding support has led individual states to
build their own technological literacy policies and
programs. While states often share experiences and best
practices, the diversity of state policies complicates
any attempt at any generalized evaluation of their
effectiveness. The diversity of educational experiences
and socioeconomic conditions across school districts
further complicates these efforts. More specific,
context-dependent information is needed to assess the
effectiveness of state policies related to technological
literacy. Studies that evaluate the implementation of
these policies must take into account street-level
attitudes, perceptions, understandings, and behavior as
well as the context in which implementation occurs.
</p>
<p>
The CFF program intends to make a dramatic shift in
public education practices by changing how students are
taught and how they learn. However, capacity to implement
a policy is about more than just the provision of
tangible resources. Implementers must see the policy as
valuable enough to force a break from established
practices. Policy implementation is said to begin with
the first actions and decisions of implementers; as a
result, their behavior, preferences, and understandings
has great bearing on understanding the implementation
process (Goggin, 1986). Policy "meaning" is created in
context, based on the skills, knowledge, values, and
biases of implementers, as well as the environment in
which implementation takes place (Yanow, 1996). Policies
often contain compromise language that is intentionally
vague and sometimes conflicting, leading implementers to
exercise discretion (Hill & Hupe, 2002; Hill, 2003).
Recognizing the understandings, perceptions, and
cognitive abilities of implementers - <em>street-level
bureaucrats</em> - is therefore essential to
understanding the implementation process.
</p>
<p>
Implementing agent discretion has been recognized as an
impetus for policy success or failure (Riccucci, 2005).
Many studies of street-level implementation use
implementer attitudes and perceptions as proxies for
behavior (Kelly, 1994; Hill & Hupe, 2002; Riccucci,
2005). Consideration of implementer understandings,
resources, and motives is considered important for
explaining what unfolds in actual implementation (Lester
& Goggin, 1998; O'Toole, 2000). The
<em>bottom-up</em> perspective of implementation research
recognizes that street-level personnel exercise
discretion in implementation, and this discretion
ultimately is a factor in the eventual "success" of the
implementation. Consequently, analysis relies heavily on
the goals, perceptions, understandings, and activities of
implementation personnel (Sabatier, 1986; Matland, 1995;
Riccucci, 2005).
</p>
<p>
Scholars such as Ingram (1990) and Matland (1995) moved
the study of policy implementation towards
<em>contingency</em> theories. Contingency theories
recognize the importance of the environmental context in
determining an appropriate implementation strategy
(Chackerian & Mavima, 2001; deLeon, 1999).
Contingency perspectives argue that both top-down and
bottom-up perspectives can be useful, depending on the
scenario (Chackerian & Mavima, 2001). The public
education system in the United States is difficult to
change, given the high levels of teacher autonomy and the
loose coupling of schools and districts (McDermott,
2006). Pennsylvania's funding system for schools - which
focuses on property taxes as the primary funding source -
means that educational capacity varies significantly
across Pennsylvania. As a result, the environmental
context is an important factor in CFF implementation.
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
STUDY DESIGN
</h3>
<p>
This educational policy implementation study employs a
modified bottom-up, mixed-methods approach to investigate
how Pennsylvania's CFF program is implemented in a set of
eight (8) rural school districts. The purpose of this
study is to better understand how one state-level
technological literacy policy is implemented at the
street level. By combining the bottom-up focus on
street-level implementers with contingency-style concerns
of implementation context, this study provides insight
into how the CFF policy is implemented. Such information
can have valuable implications for understanding what
makes these policies and programs successful (or not) and
can inform subsequent educational policy efforts in this
domain.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Research Questions
</h3>
<p>
There are three top-level research questions this study
will address. The first research question is: <em>How are
K-12 Teachers Using Technology to Enhance Learning?</em>
This question is intended to illuminate the on-the-ground
outputs (activities) of districts designed to build
technological literacy. The second research question is:
<em>How are K-12 Teachers Adapting Their Practices
Through the Use of CFF Resources?</em> The activities of
K-12 teachers (the street-level implementers) represent
the actual implementation of CFF. The CFF program is
designed to facilitate a transformation in pedagogical
practices; if teachers are not making this
transformation, the policy will not be successful. The
third research question is: <em>What Contextual
Challenges Exist in CFF Implementation?</em> Local-level
context is the setting in which implementation occurs -
consequently, it colors many of the activities,
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of implementers.
This includes personal, environmental, and organizational
challenges, as well as the actions of administrators to
encourage the implementation process.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Units of Analysis
</h3>
<p>
The eight rural school districts participating in this
study exist within a single Pennsylvania Intermediate
Unit. These districts include 13 middle and high schools.
All districts are CFF-eligible and all have participated
in the state CFF program for at least one year. The study
involves two distinct groups of participants in each
district. The first group is the set of teachers at the
individual schools ("teachers"). Teachers are ultimately
responsible for using the CFF equipment and resources,
and for being innovators in the implementation of
CFF-style curriculum content. The attitudes, perceptions,
and behaviors of the teachers will be a significant
factor in whether or not CFF is successful. The second
group is the combination of district superintendents,
curriculum coordinators (district-level and/or
school-level), and school principals ("administrators").
These agents represent the managers in this context. In
terms of CFF, the leadership actions of administrators -
tangible and intangible - should directly affect
implementation of the CFF policy by teachers.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
</h3>
<p>
Data collection involved both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Custom survey instruments were
delivered to both teachers and administrators. These
surveys were developed in consultation with the existing
literature, as well as input from school administrators,
teachers, and faculty colleagues. The set of specific
survey questions was broken into three subsets. The first
subset targeted technological literacy efforts within the
school and/or district (not specific to CFF), including
questions about technological literacy practices. The
second subset of questions was directed at practices
specific to the CFF program. The third subset of
questions included individual demography questions.
Questions necessarily varied by group but many of the
questions were shared between surveys. Survey
participants were recruited by e-mail. Each survey was
delivered to participants via the SurveyMonkey online
survey tool (http://www.surveymonkey.com/). The survey
responses were then coded and analyzed using SPSS
statistical software. Besides frequency analysis, three
statistical analysis methods were utilized. The
Chi-Square test was used to detect significant
correlations between categorical variables. The Cramer's
V test was used to verify the Chi-Square results and to
measure the strength of significant Chi-Square
associations. Finally, Pearson's <em>r</em> was used to
measure the strength and direction of significant
Chi-Square associations between ordinal variables.
</p>
<p>
A series of four (4) focus group sessions was also held
to gain a deeper understanding of how technological
literacy and CFF is being implemented in the
participating districts. These sessions involved only
teachers, were held within four different school
districts, and involved teachers from a diverse set of
disciplines and levels of CFF involvement. Each focus
group session was recorded and transcribed. Focus group
questions were broken into three primary subsets. The
first subset of questions was targeted at technological
literacy efforts within the school and/or district
(CFF-specific and otherwise). The second subset of
questions was directed at teachers' perceptions of CFF
impacts on their teaching practices. The third subset of
questions gathered information on the personal,
organizational, and/or environmental factors that
challenged teachers' implementation of CFF.
</p>
<p>
Focus group participants were selected by two methods.
First, teachers were recruited via e-mail. Second, this
researcher worked with district administrators to ensure
an adequate number of participants in each focus group.
The four districts chosen from the overall sample
included the district with the highest amount of CFF
funding, the district with the largest enrollment, the
district with the highest per-pupil expenditures and
revenues, and the district with the highest AYP
percentages of students assessed as "advanced or
proficient" for reading and mathematics among the sample
districts. The choice of districts for the focus groups
was based solely on teacher participation. Qualitative
data from the focus groups were coded and analyzed using
MaxQDA 2007 software.
</p>
<p>
A third aspect of data collection involved solicitation
and review of sample project assignments provided by
teachers in the participating districts. These materials
were solicited prior to the focus group sessions. These
classroom materials were expected to provide insight into
the actual classroom activities of teachers and therefore
complement the self-reported data from the surveys and
the qualitative data from the focus groups. These
materials were both paper-based and electronic (sent via
e-mail).
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
FINDINGS
</h3>
<p>
The following sections describe survey, focus group, and
documentation results designed to elicit the
on-the-ground outputs (activities) of districts intending
to build technological literacy, primarily through the
CFF program. The activities of K-12 teachers (the
street-level implementers) and administrators (the public
managers) represent the actual implementation of CFF. By
gaining this knowledge, it was expected that a clearer
picture of the implementation behavior of street-level
personnel would be obtained.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Survey Results
</h3>
<p>
A total of 151 teacher survey responses were recorded for
a response rate of 26.2% (N=574.7 FTE). The number of
survey responses varied by question. The respondents were
primarily female (68.4%, N=114) and White/Caucasian
(95.6%, N=113). Most respondents had received a Masters
Degree (57.6%, N=115). The teaching disciplines of
respondents were also varied. Teachers from the four
"core" subjects represented over half of the respondents
(N=113). In terms of specific subjects, 23.0% teach
Language Arts, 15.9% teach Science, 8.0% teach
Mathematics, and 7.1% teach Social Studies. Prominent
other disciplines included Special Education (15.9%),
Physical Education/Health (5.6%), and Art, Business,
Technology Education, and Foreign Languages (3.5% each).
</p>
<p>
Ninety-nine of the 151 teacher respondents were eligible
to answer the CFF-related questions. Specifically, only
those teachers who reported themselves as teaching in
grades 9-12 were given access to the CFF-related
questions. This restriction was due to the nature of the
CFF program, which specifically targets Mathematics,
Social Studies, Language Arts, and Science teachers in
grades 9-12. Of these 99 teachers, 45 (45.5%) reported
themselves as CFF coaches or users of CFF equipment.
Teachers in grades 7-8 were not given access to the
CFF-related questions. Teachers in grades 7-8 were given
access to technological literacy questions that were not
CFF-specific, as it is likely that these concepts impact
their pedagogy.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
<em>Teacher Survey: Technology in the Classroom - Access,
Use, and Integration</em>
</h3>
<p>
Teachers were asked a series of survey questions about
technology use for classroom instruction. These questions
focused on three things: access to technology in the
classroom, the frequency of teachers' technology use in
the classroom, and the frequency of student technology
use in the classroom. All questions involved a set of 16
specific technologies, ranging from traditional office
software to more modern Web 2.0 technologies and
interactive Smartboards. A description of these 16
technologies is provided in Table 2.
</p><img src="https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/download/2755/version/2001/3536/12823/table2.png" class="article_image" width="580"
height="592" alt="table 2">
<div class="image_caption">
Table 2: Technology Descriptions.
</div>
<p>
Teachers reported having access to a wide variety of
technologies for classroom instruction. Traditional
Microsoft Office-style tools - word processing (91.6%,
N=119), spreadsheets (73.1%, N=119), and presentation
software (73.1%, N=119) - were the most frequently cited
accessible technologies, followed by Smartboards (71.4%,
N=119), student laptops (64.7%, N=119), and streaming
video (63.0%, N=119). Web 2.0 technologies such as social
networking Web sites (5.9%, N=119); RSS (10.1%, N=119);
Podcasting (30.3%, N=119); and blogs (33.6%, N=119) were
cited infrequently. This lack of access was to be
expected, as all school districts in the study make many
Web 2.0 sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, YouTube)
inaccessible to faculty, staff, and students. Some Web
2.0 technologies like Wikis (42.9%, N=119) and streaming
video (63.0%, N=119) are frequently provided as
internally or externally controlled options in lieu of
more public outlets. Multimedia authoring software was
also rarely cited (26.1%, N=119), despite modern
perceptions of students as "visual learners."
</p>
<p>
Teachers were then asked to indicate the frequency of
their use of these 16 technologies for classroom
instruction. The frequency was measured using a six-level
scale (<em>Not Used, Daily, Weekly, Monthly,
Quarterly</em>, or <em>Unknown</em>). The results suggest
a general lack of technology use by teachers in the
classroom. <em>Not Used</em> was the most popular
response for 13 of the 16 technologies. Not surprisingly,
Web 2.0 technologies like Blogs, Social Networking, and
Podcasts/Podcasting were among the most frequently cited
as <em>Not Used</em>. Three other technologies -
presentation software, word processing software, and
Smartboards - were most frequently cited as being used on
a <em>Daily</em> basis.
</p>
<p>
Responses from CFF coaches and teachers alone were
slightly more diverse. <em>Not Used</em> was the most
frequent response for 10 of the 16 technologies, but CFF
coaches and teachers most often reported <em>Daily</em>
use for Smartboards (73.3%, N=45) and for word
processing, presentation, and database software. Student
laptops, the core of the CFF program, were most often
reported as being used <em>Weekly</em> by CFF coaches and
teachers (31.8%, N=44), with only 15.9% reporting
<em>Daily</em> use. The frequent use of Smartboards by
all groups is not surprising, as Smartboards are one of
the more currently popular educational technologies.
</p>
<p>
Two additional questions were posed to uncover how
technology and technological literacy are integrated into
classroom practice. Teachers were asked how often they
assigned problems, projects, or assignments that required
their students to use the 15 component skills of
technological literacy listed in Table 1. Teachers were
given a five-level scale (<em>Never, Daily, Weekly,
Monthly,</em> and <em>Quarterly</em>) from which to
choose. Nine of the 15 skills were most often reported as
necessary for <em>Daily</em> projects, problems, or
assignments. The other six component skills -
inquiry-based learning skills, collaborative skills,
basic computer skills, leadership and coordination
skills, cultural awareness, and multidisciplinary
thinking - were most often reported as being necessary
for <em>Weekly</em> projects, problems, or assignments.
The components most frequently reported for
<em>Daily</em> assignments included several of the
so-called "soft skills" - time management skills (74.8%,
N=115), interpersonal skills (69.8%, N=116),
communication skills (66.4%, N=116), and lifelong
learning (63.5%, N=115) - along with critical thinking
skills (57.8%, N=116) and problem-solving skills (60.0%,
N=115). The results for CFF coaches and teachers were
similar; nine of the 15 component skills were most often
reported as necessary for <em>Daily</em> projects,
problems, or assignments. The other six component skills
- inquiry-based learning skills, creativity and
innovation, collaborative skills, basic computer skills,
leadership and coordination skills, and multidisciplinary
thinking - were most often reported as being necessary
for <em>Weekly</em> projects, problems, or assignments.
</p>
<p>
When asked how often students use technology to build
technological literacy skills in their classes, the
teacher responses were more uniform. Teachers were given
a six-level scale (<em>Never, Daily, Weekly, Monthly,
Quarterly,</em> and <em>Unknown</em>) from which to
choose. Teachers most often reported that students use
technology in their classes <em>Weekly</em> to build 14
of the 15 component skills. The lone exception - lifelong
learning skills - was reported equally between two
categories (<em>Daily</em> and <em>Monthly</em>). The
component skills most frequently reported being used via
<em>Weekly</em> student technology use were critical
thinking skills (43.5%, N=115), creativity and innovation
(39.1%, N=115), problem-solving and inquiry-based
learning skills (both 37.4%, N=115), and basic computer
skills (36.8%, N=114). CFF coaches and teachers most
often reported that students use technology
<em>Weekly</em> to build all 15 component skills.
</p>
<p>
Chi-Square and Cramer's V analysis was performed to
identify significant correlations between the frequency
of assigned problems, projects, or assignments that
required students to use technological literacy skills
and how often students use technology to build these
skills. The results (Table 3) showed significant
correlations at the (p ≤ 0.01) level for 10 of the 15
component skills, and at the (p ≤ 0.05) level for three
other component skills. These results suggest that
efforts to build technological literacy skills often
involve the actual use of technology, though earlier
results suggest that the set of technologies used may not
be diverse.
</p><img src="https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/download/2755/version/2001/3536/12824/table3.png" class="article_image" width="580"
height="380" alt="table 3">
<div class="image_caption">
Table 3: Teacher Responses: Chi-Square Analysis -
Frequency of Assignments Involving Technological Literacy
Skills vs. Student Technology Use to Build Technological
Literacy Skills.
</div>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
<em>Administrators: Technology Access, Use, and
Integration</em>
</h3>
<p>
Administrators were also asked a series of similar
questions to elicit information on teachers' access to
technology in the classroom, the frequency of teachers'
technology use in the classroom, and the frequency of
student technology use in the classroom. All questions
involved the set of 16 specific technologies found in the
teacher survey.
</p>
<p>
Administrators reported that teachers in their
school/district have access to a wide variety of
technologies for classroom instruction. Word processing
software and Smartboards or similar devices were the most
frequently selected technologies (100.0% for both, N=21),
followed by student laptops (95.2%) and spreadsheets and
presentation software (85.7% for both, N=21). Web 2.0
technologies such as social networking Web sites (9.5%,
N=21); Real Simple Syndication (9.5%, N=21); Podcasting
(42.9%, N=21) were cited infrequently. This lack of
access was to be expected, given the aforementioned
"blocking" of many Web 2.0 sites. Some Web 2.0
technologies - Wikis (66.7%, N=21), blogs (71.4%, N=21),
and streaming video (81.0%, N=21) - were frequent
selections. Wikis and streaming video are frequently
provided as in-house, controlled options in lieu of more
public outlets. As with the teacher survey, multimedia
authoring software was cited infrequently (33.3%, N=21).
</p>
<p>
Administrators were then asked to indicate the frequency
of teachers' use of these 16 technologies for classroom
instruction. The frequency was measured using a six-level
scale (<em>Not Used, Daily, Weekly, Monthly,
Quarterly</em>, or <em>Unknown</em>). The results show a
general lack of knowledge on how frequently technology is
used by teachers in the classroom, but a more positive
perception on classroom technology use than teachers.
<em>Unknown</em> was the most frequent selection for 10
of the 16 technologies. Despite the aforementioned
restrictions on Web 2.0 technologies, <em>Not Used</em>
was the most popular response for only one Web 2.0
technology (Social Networking, 68.4%, N=19). The office
productivity software - presentations, word processing,
and spreadsheets - were most frequently cited as being
used on a daily basis. Common CFF technologies -
Smartboards (81.0%, N=21) and student laptops (52.4%,
N=21) - were also cited most frequently as being used on
a daily basis.
</p>
<p>
Administrators were next asked how often students use
technology to build technological literacy skills in
class. The administrator responses suggest a greater
confidence or knowledge that technology is being used in
the classroom, despite earlier responses. Administrators
were given a six-level scale (<em>Never, Daily, Weekly,
Monthly, Quarterly,</em> and <em>Unknown</em>) from which
to choose. Administrators most often reported that
students use technology in their classes daily to build
communication skills (42.9%, N=21), critical thinking
skills (42.9%, N=21), problem-solving skills (47.6%,
N=21), and basic computer skills (61.9%, N=21). The use
of technology to build creativity and innovation skills
was equally split between <em>Daily</em> and
<em>Weekly</em> (38.1%, N=21 each), and the use of
technology to build students' ability to use, interpret,
validate, and synthesize information was equally split
between <em>Daily</em> and <em>Unknown</em> (33.3%,
N=21). Not surprisingly, <em>Unknown</em> was the most
frequent selection (either alone or tied) for nine of the
15 component skills.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
<em>Teacher Survey: How are Teachers Adapting Their
Practices via CFF Resources?</em>
</h3>
<p>
As a companion to the earlier questions regarding
technology use, teachers in grades 9-12 were asked to
identify how frequently they use the CFF resources within
their school/district. The responses indicated that 42.0%
(N=100) do not use the available CFF resources, 35.0% use
them on a daily basis, 11.0% use them weekly, and 5% use
the CFF resources monthly. For CFF coaches and teachers
alone (N=45), 4.4% reported non-use of the CFF resources
or monthly use, 64.4% reported daily use, and 24.44%
reported weekly use. These results suggest heavy
integration of CFF resources by CFF teachers, as can
reasonably be expected.
</p>
<p>
In terms of classroom pedagogy, teachers overwhelmingly
agreed/strongly agreed that technology is an integral
part of their day-to-day instruction (74.8%, N=127), in
contrast to the prior results suggesting limited
classroom technology use. Teachers also frequently
agreed/strongly agreed that their classes were structured
around active or inquiry-based learning, both overall
(74.8%, N=127) and for CFF coaches and teachers alone
(77.8%, N=45). The responses for these two questions were
highly correlated for all teachers (X<sup>2</sup>=165.487, df=16, p
≤ 0.01; Cramer's V=0.573, p ≤ 0.01), suggesting that the
use of technology and active/inquiry-based learning
methods go hand-in-hand in the participating districts.
</p>
<p>
CFF stresses the need for more active and inquiry-based
pedagogy; surprisingly, CFF coaches and teachers were
most often <em>Neutral (Undecided)</em> when asked
whether CFF has encouraged them to use more inquiry-based
teaching methods (47.5%, N=97). This may be due to the
prior use of such methods by CFF faculty; inquiry-based
learning has been a popular movement for years in Science
and other educational disciplines. This result may also
reflect the type of teacher most likely to be proactive
in their use of CFF resources: a willingness to explore
new pedagogical possibilities like CFF may reflect a
prior willingness to explore active/inquiry-based
methods. The responses to the two questions on
active/inquiry-based learning methods - whether teachers'
classes were structured that way and whether CFF
encouraged these methods - were significantly related for
CFF coaches and users (X<sup>2</sup>=36.292, df=1, p ≤ 0.01). The
strength and direction ofthe relationship (Pearson's
<em>r</em> = 0.468, p ≤ 0.01) suggests, at least for CFF
coaches and teachers, that CFF is having a significant,
positive impact on pedagogy.
</p><em>Administrator Survey: How are Teachers Adapting
Their Practices via CFF Resources?</em>
<p>
Administrators were asked to provide an approximate
number of teachers who utilized the CFF equipment, both
within their school and/or their district. The most
frequently selected estimates were 6-10 CFF teachers at
their school (45.0%, N=20) and 11-20 CFF teachers within
their district (35.3%, N=17). Two administrators (10.0%,
N=20) estimated that 41 or more teachers used the CFF
equipment in their school or district.
</p>
<p>
Administrators were also asked about the
<em>frequency</em> at which teachers utilize the CFF
equipment in their school and district. The majority of
respondents indicated daily use of the CFF equipment,
both within their school (60.0%, N=20) and their district
(57.9%, N=19). It should be noted that a significant
portion of respondents indicated they did not know how
often the equipment was used (15.0% in their school,
N=20; 26.3% in their district, N=19). Administrators
overwhelmingly agreed/strongly agreed that participation
in CFF has encouraged teachers to use more inquiry-based
teaching methods (85.7%, N=21), though the teacher
results suggest that this may be more perception than
reality.
</p>
<p>
Focus Group Results
</p>
<p>
The following sections discuss the relevant focus group
responses. Two of the focus groups involved primarily
CFF-related teachers, while two of the groups were more
diverse (either entirely non-CFF teachers or a mix). The
four focus group sessions were comprised of 22 total
participants.
</p>
<p>
Teachers' Use of Technology and CFF Resources
</p>
<p>
The two focus groups involving primarily non-CFF
personnel were asked the question <em>How do you
specifically use technology in the classroom to enhance
student learning?</em> While this question was not
specifically posed to the other two CFF-heavy focus
groups, all participants were very forthcoming about
their use of technology in the classroom. The responses
indicate a fairly diverse set of technology uses and
student projects in the classroom, more so than is
indicated by the survey data. While some teachers
indicated minimal technology use (e.g., "I really do not
use it that often"), many others spoke excitedly about
their use of technology to engage students and provide
"fun" demonstrations, in-class activities, and student
assignments.
</p>
<p>
The examples of classroom technology use given by focus
group participants were fairly diverse. Smartboards were
the most frequently mentioned technology across
disciplines. Smartboards are often used in tandem with
interactive exercises, discipline-specific software, and
especially PowerPoint presentations. Web searching was
also frequently mentioned as a component of classroom
technology use by students. In one case, the use of
custom-built, internally-controlled Wikis was mentioned
as an alternative to other forms of out-of-class
interactivity. The following descriptions provide
examples of technology-related class activities discussed
by the focus groups:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Developing Internet searches to allow students to
find information on poets; students then use this
information to construct a multimedia presentation on the
poet using words, pictures, music, and sound (English
Literature)
</li>
<li>Providing a Wiki so that students may collaboratively
create a learning resource for organelles, using a
section of their textbook and Web-based research
(Science)
</li>
<li>Conducting experiments in teams with specific job
roles. One team member conducts the experiment, a second
documents the procedures and results using a Wiki, a
third creates a movie-based record of the experiment, and
the fourth documents the process using paper and pencil
(Science)
</li>
<li>Streaming Discovery Education content (Foreign
Languages)
</li>
<li>Using PowerPoint and Internet searches to research
class presentations (History)
</li>
<li>Using blogs for student journaling and interactive
discussions (History, English)
</li>
<li>Providing the entirety of course content - readings
and assignments - online (History)
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Other uses of technology mentioned in the focus groups
included online learning games, computer-aided drafting
software, and streaming audio.
</p>
<p>
Besides the aforementioned uses of Smartboards and other
CFF-specific resources, focus group participants pointed
out another vital CFF resource - the CFF "coach" at each
school. The role of the CFF coach is to help other CFF
teachers get up and running with a variety of CFF tools
and resources, as well as to act in a mentoring role for
those faculty looking to explore their options. Several
of the focus group participants noted the important
contribution of the CFF coach in revealing the
possibilities afforded by the CFF program. The use of
student laptops was infrequently mentioned, though the
implication was that the computer-intensive work in the
aforementioned projects was performed using CFF laptops.
</p>
<p>
CFF Impact on Teaching Styles and Practices
</p>
<p>
The focus groups involving CFF personnel were asked the
question <em>How has the CFF program changed your
teaching methods or style?</em> The focus group responses
suggest a more dramatic change in practices and styles
than the teacher survey results indicated. Participants
noted how the CFF technologies caused them to re-think
their methods; for example, one participant noted,
"Sometimes I think it's taken me back to the drawing
board&hellip;where I need to re-think everything." Others
noted how the CFF technologies had given them a sense of
freedom ("it got me away from just standing in front of
the room") and opened up new possibilities for
instruction and interactivity ("it opened up a definite
potential for other things to do").
</p>
<p>
A few of the younger faculty noted that they had never
experienced a classroom without the CFF program and,
thus, considered the technologies and methods advocated
by CFF to be part of the basic K-12 experience. These
teachers see their role as primarily a facilitator rather
than a rote lecturer. The reliance on CFF technologies
and tools is ingrained: "I teach with my Smartboard
everyday so like if it doesn't work I don't know what I
would do." While some mathematics teachers noted that
importance of the Smartboard ("the Smartboard is the best
thing that has impacted teaching as far as Math would
go"), other CFF tools were seen as providing a change of
pace for mathematics students rather than a
transformative experience. Other CFF faculty noted the
importance of the Smartboards as well as the importance
of the student laptops. The overall perspective from the
focus group participants is that the CFF program has
impacted these teachers' methods, styles, and procedures.
One participant summed it up best by saying:
</p>
<blockquote>
"The way I would describe it is as a mechanic trying to
fix a car with an adjustable wrench - you can do it, but
it's pretty tough. But giving those computers to me was
like giving me a set of tools. Now I can work on the
engine and get it going the way I wanted to."
</blockquote><em>Administrator Encouragement</em>
<p>
Each focus group was asked about their perceptions of
administrator support and encouragement. For those focus
groups involving CFF personnel, the question was phrased
<em>How has administration been supportive or
non-supportive of CFF in your school?</em> For focus
groups devoid of CFF personnel, the question was phrased
<em>Do you feel administrators encourage you to use
technology?</em> The focus group responses correlate with
the teacher survey results. In all cases, teachers
responded that administration was supportive of the CFF
program and/or their use of technology. Examples included
administrative initiative in getting the CFF grant
process started and allocating time for interested
teachers to get the requisite CFF training. The use of
special in-service programs for CFF personnel was also
noted. There was no mention of administrative
verification of technology use. For non-CFF teachers, the
methods by which administration encourages technology use
were somewhat perfunctory. One method in particular
stands out: "It used to be that we had to write our
lessons plans, now we have to type them on the computer."
</p>
<p>
It was obvious during the focus group sessions that the
level of participants' technology knowledge and their
frequency of technology use impacted their responses.
More than one respondent indicated that students seemed
to know more about modern technology than the teachers,
even going so far as to use students for classroom IT
support. As implementing agents, teachers must be able to
recognize if they lack the requisite skills for
implementing policy. Teachers must then seek out sources
for building those skills. Administrators must both
encourage teachers and direct them to appropriate
learning resources. The focus group results suggest that
a minimal amount of training is provided. For tech-savvy
personnel, this is not a problem. However, for those
teachers with fewer technology skills, the lack of
understanding of technology use - and the resultant need
for training and/or learning resources - acts as a
barrier to successful implementation of CFF and related
programs.
</p><em>Contextual Challenges to Implementation</em>
<p>
All of the focus groups were asked the question <em>What
personal, organizational, or environmental challenges do
you face in implementing CFF or any other technology
program?</em> The most common "personal challenge" cited
was a lack of time to fully grasp the technologies and
the program. The general mood seemed to be that teachers
are limited, either contractually or personally, to a
strict eight-hour workday. Teachers overwhelming agreed
that other commitments - class time, paperwork, keeping
current in their fields - limited their ability to
explore the new possibilities afforded by CFF. One
participant put it succinctly:
</p>
<blockquote>
"The teachers are already committed to their time in the
classroom. They already have to keep current with what
they have to do, and then you're offering them new things
and while they're enthusiastic - they just don't have the
time."
</blockquote>
<p>
Things like district curriculum and state standardized
test preparation were said to take away time for teachers
to explore new approaches like CFF. Participants pointed
out that many of the CFF personnel at their school used
their own time to complete the requisite CFF training,
and indicated that teachers' willingness to use their own
time factored into their selection as CFF coaches and
users by administrators. Enthusiasm among CFF personnel
was high, but participants lamented the lack of time for
collaboration, sharing of ideas, and follow-up training.
Lunch was commonly cited as a prime time for CFF teachers
to discuss experiences and share best practices.
</p>
<p>
Technical difficulties were also a commonly cited
environmental challenge. One focus group remarked about
the problems getting a wireless network set up in their
school; the delay in getting this connectivity limited
the use of CFF equipment when it first arrived. These
problems were exacerbated by the advanced age of the
participating high schools and their inherently
wireless-unfriendly building materials. One participant
pointed out that teachers need to be in a
wireless-enabled classroom in order to use CFF student
laptop carts, and some of the classrooms that interested
teachers use are not wireless capable. Laptop
connectivity issues also tended to be intermittent in
addition to other technical glitches ("We have 30 on the
cart, but 30 will never work on a good day").
</p>
<p>
Sluggish network logons were also cited by more than one
focus group. The slow login procedure was said to inhibit
the use of CFF laptops and other computers ("You could
have a 40-minute period and the first 15 minutes are
devoted to getting everyone up and running"). Limited
classroom space was also mentioned as inhibiting the use
of laptop carts ("It's just not worth it - you gotta move
desks, I had to move the teacher desk just to have a
place to put it so you can open it up so the kids could
get the laptops out"). Problems with logins, network
connectivity, and network outages were the most
frequently mentioned environmental challenges for the use
of CFF resources and technology in general.
</p>
<p>
Despite the survey findings of robust classroom
technology access, limited computer access was another
challenge cited by the focus groups. More than one focus
group complained about the small number of computer labs
in their high school. Technology-specific departments -
usually business - mentioned having technology
classrooms, but general-purpose technology classrooms
seemed to be sparse. In one high school, only one general
purpose lab exists (in the library) and scheduling is
done months in advance. This lab is continually booked.
While each department has a cart of student laptops that
can be checked out, this too presents issues of
contention. When asked if the laptops are heavily used,
one participant answered "when they work," highlighting
the aforementioned technical issues.
</p>
<p>
Few organizational challenges were mentioned. One
participant pointed out how the philosophy emphasized by
CFF training materials - the idea of learning
authentically, via pared-down curricula - contrasted
greatly with state and district regulations and
curriculum guidelines. The Pennsylvania state-level
standardized exams and other commitments were viewed as a
box in which teachers must work, limiting full use of the
CFF philosophy and resources. Differences in academic
requirements between districts were also shown to be a
limiting factor on technology-centric course offerings.
One participant pointed out that his district uses a
seven-period day, as opposed to the common eight-period
day. This loss of one period reduced the ability of
students to take elective courses. As a result, this
district focuses on mandatory subject areas and does not
have the technology offerings found in other districts.
</p><em>Document Reviews</em>
<p>
Sample projects and assignments were solicited from
teachers in grades 9-12. These examples were intended to
permit a more accurate examination of how technology is
used for student learning. These examples were analyzed
to further investigate how technological literacy skills
were being built in the participating districts. Despite
the best efforts of the investigator and the generous
support of district administrators, only 15 assignments
were received from five districts. The 15 assignments
came from the CFF disciplines of Science (6), Language
Arts (5), Mathematics (3), and Social Studies (1), though
examples were solicited from teachers in all disciplines.
The example assignments were coded based on their
content, their use of technology, and their pedagogical
goals (explicit or implicit).
</p>
<p>
The example assignments provided by participating
teachers represented a mix of traditional
"observe-and-report" assignments combined with more
creative, critical-thinking based projects. Communication
skills, critical thinking, collaboration skills, and
creativity and innovation appeared to be the
technological literacy skills most emphasized among the
sample assignments. Written communications were required
for 12 of the 15 example assignments. Examples of these
assignments included Chemistry research reports, the
production of "newspaper reports" for historical events,
and video-driven question sheets. Oral presentations were
required on three of the example assignments, and one
assignment required only visual communication (via an
electronic propaganda poster).
</p>
<p>
While six of the example assignments were structured
around simple rote observation and/or memorization, four
assignments emphasized critical analysis of source
material or classroom experiences. Creativity was an
essential part of four assignments, as was collaborative
teamwork among students. Examples of assignments
emphasizing creativity included the construction of a
photo montage describing the themes of <em>Romeo and
Juliet</em> and the use of PowerPoint to discuss one of
Chaucer's tales.
</p>
<p>
In terms of specific technologies, PowerPoint was the
primary deliverable (3 assignments), though one
assignment did explicitly require the use of a blog and a
Wiki. Multimedia presentations and/or content were a
common theme, occurring in 12 example assignments. Six
assignments required the use of external Web sites. These
sites were used as vehicles for streaming video (2
assignments), mathematical simulations (3), or as
multimedia data sources (1). The use of student laptops
was explicitly mentioned on only one assignment.
</p>
<p>
The example assignments provided by participating
teachers parallel the results found in the survey and
focus group analyses. Technology use by teachers seems to
be fairly narrow, focusing on the use of PowerPoint and
external Web sites. The use of multimedia and external
Web sites seem to be simply a vehicle for providing
visual flair to otherwise traditional, observe-and-report
assignments. Multimedia did, however, provide avenues for
creativity in a few of the example assignments.
Technological literacy skills are a core piece of these
assignments but the emphasis is too narrow, primarily
focusing on written skills. While the size of the example
assignments sample is too small to make generalizations,
the results suggest that innovative applications of
technology to build technological literacy skills via
student assignments is sporadic rather than widespread.
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
DISCUSSION
</h3>
<p>
The CFF program began implementation in 2006. Based on
the perceived success of other states in implementing
similar programs, policymakers saw the widespread
provision of computers and other classroom technologies -
coupled with a standardized set of training resources -
as key to keeping Pennsylvania competitive by building
the technological literacy skills of K-12 students. The
policy was a victim of the 2009 state budget battle,
though most schools in Pennsylvania were able to
participate before the cessation of funding, and some
continue using the CFF equipment and resources even
today. The findings in this implementation study suggest
that CFF faces a number of implementation challenges.
</p>
<p>
The survey and focus group results indicate that teachers
perceive their classes as using a limited set of
technologies to build a wide variety of skills. Despite
widespread access to multiple technologies, teachers
report that classroom technology use is predominantly
limited to traditional Office-style software and
interactive Smartboards. More modern Web 2.0 tools are
rarely used due to in-house restrictions on Internet
content. Student laptops, the core technology provided by
CFF, are used somewhat sparingly. Despite this,
enthusiasm for the CFF program among the focus group
participants was evident, and both technology and
active/inquiry-based methods were widely considered to be
an integral part of K-12 pedagogy.
</p>
<p>
Despite the focus on a limited set of technologies,
teachers report assigning problems, projects, or
assignments that exercise all technological literacy
skills on at least a weekly basis. This perceived breadth
of coverage was not supported by the teacher-provided
example assignments. The results suggest a general focus
on Technology Literacy skills rather than technology
itself, although the level of that focus is questionable.
This finding raises questions about the scope of CFF
implementation and suggests potential problems with
implementation within the participating districts. CFF is
designed to provide the tools necessary to make a
"transformative" change in educational practice. These
results suggest that the intended "transformation" may
not be occurring within these districts. The finding of
sparse technology usage raises questions about whether
old pedagogical methods are simply being modified to
include a limited set of new technologies (i.e., "old
wine in new bottles").
</p>
<p>
The success or failure of a policy is a product of many
factors, including the individual behavior of the
implementing agents. Without shared understandings of the
policy and its implementation between public managers
(i.e., administrators) and street-level bureaucrats
(i.e., teachers), one or both groups may exercise
considerable discretion during implementation. The study
results indicate that there exist substantive differences
between administrators and teachers in their perceptions
of behaviors related to CFF implementation. The
dissonance between administrators and teachers inevitably
results in implementer discretion, limiting the
possibilities for systematic assessment and, ultimately,
impacting the chances of programmatic success in these
districts.
</p>
<p>
Administrators had a largely incomplete view of classroom
technology access, use, and integration, CFF-specific and
otherwise. The results suggest administrators in these
districts have minimal knowledge about how different
technologies are used to build students' technological
literacy skills and the frequency with which technology
is used in the classroom. Administrators also reported a
more optimistic outlook about the effect of the CFF
program on teachers' use of inquiry-based teaching
methods than teachers. The findings indicate that
administrators may have insufficient knowledge of how the
CFF program is being implemented, calling into question
the ability to accurately assess the success of the
policy. Administrators need more detailed understanding
of how CFF is being implemented; without this
understanding, teachers may exercise considerable
discretion in policy implementation.
</p>
<p>
One potential reason for teachers' limited classroom
technology use and integration may be a lack of
preparation. Focus group participants reported that their
biggest challenges were time and training (to more fully
comprehend CFF, its concepts, and its components) and
technical and logistic difficulties (insufficient
equipment or rooms, technical glitches). As implementing
agents, teachers who lack technology and policy-specific
learning resources are limited in their ability to
successfully implement policy. As public managers, school
administrators must be proactive in helping teachers seek
out the resources they need to adequately implement the
CFF policy. Teachers did report that administrators
actively encourage CFF participation through multiple
methods, but it seems as though consistent and timely
teacher training is a shortfall of programmatic and
administrative efforts.
</p>
<p>
These results are compelling but are limited by the focus
on a small set of rural school districts. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 27 percent of
Pennsylvanians live in areas considered rural, though the
majority of Pennsylvania counties (48 of 67) are
classified as rural. The inherent limitation of this
research is a lack of generalization; however, the
results of this study suggest that further research is
needed to determine if the problems and challenges found
within the participating districts are common across the
state and across socio-economic school profiles.
</p>
<h3 class="ARTICLE_SUBHEAD">
CONCLUSION
</h3>
<p>
The purpose of this study was to analyze how
Pennsylvania's CFF program is being implemented in a
small set of rural school districts. The results suggest
that the CFF implementation may not be triggering the
transformation in educational practice called for by the
policy. Teachers perceive building a wide variety of
student skills with few technologies, calling into
question whether new tools (e.g., student laptops) are
simply being made to fit old methods. The two groups of
CFF implementers in this study - teachers and
administrators - exhibit some dissonance in their
perceived implementation of the CFF policy. This
dissonance increases the likelihood of implementer
discretion and, thus, challenges the policy in its
ability to achieve its goals within the study districts.
The potential for implementer discretion is exacerbated
by inadequate training resources, technical and
logistical difficulties, and competition from other
priorities. The state-level fiscal death of the CFF
policy means that in order to be successful in the
long-term, local-level training and investment efforts
will become crucial to implementation efforts. The
implementation study findings suggest an initial level of
enthusiasm for CFF in the participating districts, but
considerable challenges to its long-term chances of
success exist.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
References
</h3>
<div class="reference">
Bebell, D. (2005). <cite>Technology Promoting Student
Excellence: An Investigation of the First Year of
one-to-one Computing in New Hampshire Middle
Schools.</cite> Chestnut Hill, MA: inTASC, Boston
College.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Chackerian, R. & Mavima, P. (2001). Comprehensive
administration reform implementation: Moving beyond
single issue implementation research. <cite>Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 11</cite>(3),
353-377.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Clark, J. (2007). An Apple a Day. <cite>Down East
Magazine</cite>. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from
http://www.downeast.com/Down-East-Magazine/September-2007/An-Apple-a-Day/.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Devaney, Laura. (2011, April 12). <cite>FY11 budget
details: a mixed bag for education</cite>. eSchoolNews.
Retrieved May 1, 2011 from
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/04/12/fy11-budget-eliminates-educational-technology-funds/.
</div>
<div class="reference">
deLeon, P. (1999). The Missing Link Revisited:
Contemporary Implementation Research. <cite>Policy
Studies Review, 16</cite>(3/4), 311-338.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Emeagwali, N. (2004). Concerned that technological
literacy is Being Narrowly Interpreted. <cite>Techniques,
79</cite>(8), 16-17.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Fairman, J. (2004). <cite>Trading Roles: Teachers and
Students Learn with Technology.</cite> Maine Education
Policy Research Institute, The University of Maine
Office.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. (2004). <cite>Two Teachers
Implement One-to-One Computing: A Case Study.</cite>
Orono, ME: Maine Education Policy Institute, University
of Maine Office.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Goggin, M. (1986). The "Too Few Cases/Too Many Variables"
Problem in Implementation Research. <cite>Western
Political Quarterly, 39</cite>(2), 328-347.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Hilberg, J. & Meiselwitz, G. (2008). Undergraduate
Fluency with Information and Communications Technology:
Perceptions and Reality. <cite>Proceedings of</cite>
<cite>the SIGITE 2008 Conference on Information
Technology Education</cite>, Cincinnati, OH.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Hill, H. (2003). Understanding Implementation:
Street-Level Bureaucrats' Resources for Reform.
<cite>Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 13</cite>(3), 265-282.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Hill, M. & Hupe, P. (2002). <cite>Implementing Public
Policy</cite>. London: Sage Publications.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Hoffman, M. & Vance, D. (2005). Computer literacy: what
students know and from whom they learned it. In
<cite>Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education</cite>, 356-360.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Ingram, H. (1990). Implementation: A Review and Suggested
Framework. In N. Lynn and A. Wildavsky (Eds.),
<cite>Public Administration: The State of the Art.</cite>
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Kellner, D. & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy:
Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-century
democracy. <cite>Policy Futures in Education,
5</cite>(1), 59-69.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Kelly, M. (1994). Theories of Justice and Street-Level
Discretion. <cite>Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 4</cite>(2), 119-140.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Lester, J. & Goggin, M. (1998). Back to the Future: The
Rediscovery of Implementation Studies. <cite>Policy
Currents, 8</cite>(3), 1-11.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Matland, R. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation
Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy
Implementation. <cite>Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 5</cite>(2), 145-174.
</div>
<div class="reference">
McDermott, K. (2006). Incentives, Capacity, and
Implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts Education
Reform. <cite>Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 16</cite>(1), 45-65.
</div>
<div class="reference">
McGhee, R. & Kozma, R. (2003). <cite>New Teacher Roles in
the Technology-Supported Classroom.</cite> SRI
International. Retrieved February 01, 2009 from
http://www.edtechcases.info/papers/teacherstudentroles.pdf.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Minkel, W. (2002). Media literacy--part of the
curriculum? <cite>School Library Journal, 48</cite>(4),
31.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Murray, M., Hooper, J. & Perez, J. (2007). A
Project-Based Approach to Assessing Student Competency
with Productivity Software. <cite>Proceedings of</cite>
<cite>the AIS SIG-ED International Academy for
Information Management 2007 Conference</cite>, Montreal,
Quebec<cite>.</cite>
</div>
<div class="reference">
National Science Board. (2006). <cite>Science and
Engineering Indicators-2006</cite>. National Science
Foundation (NSB-06-1 & NSB-06-1A), Arlington, VA.
Retrieved November 15, 2007, from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/.
</div>
<div class="reference">
O'Hanlon, N. (2002). Net Knowledge: Performance of New
College Students on an Internet Skills Proficiency Test.
<cite>The Internet and Higher Education, 5</cite>(1),
55-66.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2007). <cite>Executive Summary PISA 2006: Science
Competencies for Tomorrow's World.</cite> Paris, France:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
</div>
<div class="reference">
O'Toole, L. (2000). Research on Policy Implementation:
Assessment and Prospects. <cite>Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10</cite>(2),
263-288.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). <cite>21st
Century Skills, Education and Competitiveness: A Resource
and Policy Guide.</cite> Tucson, AZ: The Partnership for
21st Century Skills.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Patterson, N. (2005). Technology and the Achievement Gap.
<cite>Voices from the Middle, 13</cite>(1), 68-69.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Pearson, G. & Young, A. (2002). <cite>Technically
speaking: Why all Americans need to Know More about
Technology</cite>. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Peck, K., Clausen, R., Vilberg, J., Meidl, C. & Murray,
O. (2009). <cite>Classrooms for the Future Year Three
Evaluation Report.</cite> Retrieved May 1, 2010 from:
http://cff.psu.edu/reports/y3/CFF_Y3_Report.pdf.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2009).
<cite>Classrooms for the Future: Overview</cite>.
Retrieved January 12, 2009, from:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=475&&PageID=202800&level=2&css=L2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.
<cite>On the Horizon, 9</cite>(5), 1-6.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Riccucci, N. (2005). Street-Level Bureaucrats and
Intrastate Variation in the Implementation of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Policies. <cite>Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 15</cite>(1),
89-111.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to
Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and
Suggested Synthesis. <cite>Journal of Public Policy,
6</cite>(1), 21-48.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Stake, J. & Mares, K. (2001). Science Enrichment Programs
for Gifted High School Girls and Boys: Predictors of
Program Impact on Science Confidence and Motivation.
<cite>Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38</cite>(10), 1065-1088.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Still, T. (2009, January 28). <cite>Want to stimulate
Wisconsin's economy? More science, math, and tech grads
will help.</cite> Retrieved February 11, 2009, from
Wisconsin Technology Network:
http://wistechnology.com/articles/5426/.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Stone, J. & Madigan, E. (2007). Inconsistencies and
disconnects: A disturbing report on the information and
communication technology skills of incoming freshmen.
<cite>Communications of the ACM, 50</cite>(4), 76-79.
</div>
<div class="reference">
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007, June 28).
<cite>STEM Occupations and Job Growth.</cite> Retrieved
December 01, 2008 from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jun/wk4/art04.htm.
</div>
<div class="reference">
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Technology
Policy. (2010). <cite>National Education Technology Plan
2010</cite>. Retrieved January 2, 2011 from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Wagner, J. (2008). <cite>Classrooms for the
Future.</cite> Performance Audit, State of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General,
Harrisburg.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Wallis, C. & Steptoe, S. (2006, December 10).How to Bring
Our Schools Out of the 20th Century. TIME, Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480,00.html.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Wen, J. & Shih, W. (2006). Exploring the information
literacy competence standards for Elementary and High
school teachers. <cite>Computers and Education,
50</cite>(3), 787-806.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Weber, K. (2005). A Proactive Approach to technological
literacy. <cite>The Technology Teacher, 64</cite>(7),
28-30.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Yanow, D. (1996). <cite>How Does a Policy Mean?
Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions</cite>.
Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
</div>
</div>