Results 

Online Survey 

Seventy six percent of the teachers in the district completed the survey, up from 70% each of the first two years.  That 76% return rate is much higher than researchers typically achieve, which may indicate that FCPS teachers are strongly committed to providing information about technology progress in their schools.  Whatever the reason, our teachers are to be commended for responding in such high numbers.  The high return rate is also an indication of the sophistication of the district’s technology infrastructure.  The surveys were done online.  Without a robust infrastructure of computers and a wide area network, the surveys could not have been completed in the first place.  That speaks to research question number 3, dealing with technology infrastructure.  Results of the surveys are in table 2, below. 

Table 2.  Summary of Responses from District Technology Assessment Survey 

• Line numbers 24, 40, 43, and 47 were default selections in a drop-down menu on the 99/00 survey and mayhave been over-represented that first year.  In other words, if a teacher skipped over the questions, this choice was automatically selected, as though the teacher had intended to select it.  Those itesm were changed in 00/01 so the default was "no selection."  As a result, all percents in italics in the 99/00 column are either artificially inflated or deflated.

• Shaded cells indicate items that improved 4% or more from the previous year.  Improvement may be an increase or decrease, depending upon the item.  Items 41, 45, and 48 appear to exceed 4% in 00/01, but they are not shaded because they were affected by the "default selections" problem described above.

As discussed previously, each of the methods of data collection has certain strengths and weaknesses.  One strength of surveys is that they can provide a global representation of performance.  For example, the DTA survey covers the majority of teachers in the district and it encompasses the totality of their instructional program -- not just one lesson or one subject.  A potential weakness is that survey ratings are based upon opinions.  Usually those opinions are an accurate representation of instructional practices, but there is room for error or misinterpretation of survey questions.  With those caveats in mind, the survey revealed that the district is making good progress in nearly all aspects of instructional technology.  As indicated below the table, the shaded cells indicate items that showed the greatest increase over the previous year. 

Table 2 shows the percent of teachers who responded, “yes” to each of the survey items in each of the three years.  Items 1-7 represent teachers’ perceptions of impact on student achievement.  The items are important in that they correspond to instructional practices that have been shown to promote student achievement.  Of particular importance are items 3-7, because they deal with practices that promote more challenging instruction for students.  All items in this area improved both years, with cumulative increases ranging from 7% to 12%. 

Items 8 – 20 deal with the variety of forms of technology that students use.  Nearly all of those either increased or remained relatively constant, with some of the largest increases occurring in items 14 and 16.  The goal for some items is actually to decrease or remain stable.  For example items 9, 11 represent low-level uses of technology that tend to be less challenging for students.  Item 12 (STAR Math and SRI) represents tests that are mandated by the Board of Education but are only required at specific grade levels, so one would not expect those percentages to change.  Items 19 and 20 are most appropriate for high school and some middle school students in math and science classes, so one would not expect those percentages to be high. 

Most education technology professionals agree that, to implement technology effectively, it should be used in a variety of instructional settings and with various sizes of groups.  Ideally, the percents for items 22 through 24 should be evenly distributed.  They are fairly well balanced between full class (item 22) and singular (item 24), but relatively low for small group (item 23).  That may be a function of the overall instructional approach the majority of teachers use (i.e., not just related to technology).  That was an observation that Sun Associates made in their 99/00 assessment and it still seems to hold true.  Percentages on those items have changed very little from last year, but what change there is has been somewhat positive.  The increase in whole class and decrease in singular uses of technology show that teachers are beginning to think more about using technology with larger groups of students. 

Items 26 – 34 deal with teachers’ own use of technology.  All of those items increased, indicating that our teachers continue to make strong progress in their own use of technology.  The most impressive increase was in item 30, “I use e-mail to communicate with parents and students.”  Over the past two years, teachers have increased this type of communication by 28%.  That has obvious positive implications for home – school communications and parent involvement.  We see an increasing number of teachers maintaining closer contact with parents due to the convenience and reliability of e-mail.  Survey data from Fayette County students indicates that access to the Internet and email outside of school has increased, even among low-income students.  Recent surveys indicate that home access ranges from 72% to 76% among Fayette County students.  One might draw a parallel to telephones.  When telephones were first invented, very few homes had them.  But they steadily became more common in homes, and are now found in the vast majority of homes.  The same increase seems to be happening with computers and e-mail, except more quickly than it did with telephones. 

Support staff are a vital part of the technology infrastructure, and items 35 – 37 address support staff.  Again, there were substantial increases on all three of those items, indicating that both school-based and district technology staff are doing a good job of providing the kinds of assistance needed to help teachers better integrate technology into their instruction.  Since the original evaluation was conducted in 99/00, there have been efforts in the district to use support staff to help address instructional recommendations made by Sun Associates.  It appears those efforts continue to pay off. 

Understandably, teachers consistently rate their own full-time school based support staff higher than part-time district staff.  However, teacher approval of district technology staff has improved by 17% over the past two years.  That is one of the largest gains on the entire survey and it continues to support the importance that our teachers place on technology resource teachers.  In fact, among schools’ draft consolidated plans, needs were identified for technology resource teachers in 83% of elementary school, 89% of middle school, and 100% of high school plans. 

Items 38 – 46 represent how much teachers use instructional technology.  The data indicate that 81% of our teachers use teaching strategies that incorporate technology at least weekly (up from 78% last year).  Out of those teachers, 37% do so one or more times a day.  In the past two years, the district has significantly increased the amount of professional development focused on practical classroom-based uses of technology.  It is anticipated that technology integration will continue to increase as a result of the improvement in how training is provided. 

Based on items 47 – 52, it appears that FCPS teachers use e-mail for a significant portion of their written correspondence.  That was found to be true in the original Sun Associates assessment, and it is still true. 

A cause of concern in the 99/00 DTA was what Sun Associates perceived as a lack of support for technology among building level administrators.  This was certainly not across the board, but there were a few striking examples of teachers saying that their building administrators did not support them in their use of technology, and in some extreme cases may have actively discouraged the use of technology.  Based on the 00/01 and 01/02 surveys, that problem seems to have been corrected.  Items 53 – 55 deal with administration.  Despite a slight decline this year compared with last year, teachers continue to rate their building administrators higher now than they did two years ago.  These data are encouraging, because it is important for the leadership in each school to be supportive if teachers are to continue improving in their integration of technology.  The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) released a set of technology standards for administrators in January 2002, so our administrators now have some guidance on how to continue to improve in this area. 

Classroom Observations 

Several types of data were collected during classroom observations in order to verify and further elaborate on results from the online surveys.  Observers also provided comments and descriptions of specific instructional activities.  See appendix 2 for a sample observation form.  It is important to keep in mind that these observations were only conducted in 105 classrooms in the district, so this is only a representative sample.  Therefore, there is room for error.  Total district data are probably a more accurate representation than data for individual levels, because the total sample was larger than the samples for individual levels. 

One type of observation data was based on stages of teacher behavior that were identified in conjunction with the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) study (Apple Computer, 1996).  That 10-year study was one of the most comprehensive evaluations dealing with educational technology, and the resulting stages are considered some of the best indicators of effective teacher behavior.  Those stages are: 

Entry                           Teachers learn the “basics” of using new technology.

Adoption                    Teachers use new technology to support traditional instructional methods.

Adaptation                 Teachers integrate new technology into traditional classroom practice, focusing on increased student productivity and engagement through the use of tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, and graphic tools.

Appropriation            Teachers focus on cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work which incorporates technology as needed and as one of many tools.

As part of the DTA classroom observations, the teachers above were observed to determine where our they stand in the continuum.  The following table shows how our teachers were rated. 

Table 3.  ACOT Ratings for Observed FCPS Teachers 

 District wide, we see the largest number of teachers at the adoption stage (36%), but showing indications of moving forward into the adaptation stage (28%).  This is an improvement over last year, when our teachers were more firmly in the adoption stage.  At the elementary level, teachers are more concentrated at the adoption and adaptation stages, with fewer teachers at the low and high ends of the continuum.  Due to the smaller numbers observed, we cannot draw conclusions about middle and high school teachers. 

Overall, this is a “healthy” range for our teachers.  In the ACOT study, it took teachers ten years to progress through the stages and many did not reach the highest stages.  In FCPS, technology has only become prominent within the past three to five years, so it is reasonable to expect our teachers would be at the adoption/adaptation stage and showing progress toward higher stages.  Figure 3 shows ACOT progress that was achieved from 00/01 to 01/02.  There has been a decrease in the percent of teachers at the lower end of the continuum, and an increase in teachers at the upper end.  One might assume that most teachers will eventually be in the middle range, with only a few at the lower and upper end; almost like a bell curve.  If that is the case, then our teacher’s ACOT ratings have shifted more closely to a bell curve. 

Figure 3. Progress on ACOT Ratings

In the 99/00 assessment, Sun Associates emphasized the need to increase the amount of student-centered instruction.  Technology tends to be more effective when used in a student centered learning environment than in a teacher directed learning environment.  That recommendation is in keeping with instructional practices promoted in Kentucky since the advent of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA).  The data below indicate the number of classrooms where instruction was (1) mainly student centered, (2) a mixture of student centered and teacher directed, or (3) mainly teacher directed.  These observations are based on the overall instructional approach employed in the classroom, and not just the approach employed in relation to technology.  While all three approaches are appropriate at different times, depending upon the lesson and the needs of students, the 99/00 DTA indicated that our teachers place too much emphasis on teacher directed instruction and not enough on the other two approaches. 

Table 4.  Student Centered vs. Teacher Directed Instruction 

The new data for 01/02 seem to indicate a relatively even mix of the three approaches.  In elementary schools, mixed instruction was the most prevalent approach.  That is appropriate, given the fact that elementary students tend to need more frequent changes in activities.  In the elementary classrooms that were observed, many teachers would introduce a concept with a large group and then divide students into small groups or have students working independently on related activities.  Only 26% of the elementary classrooms engaged entirely in teacher-directed instruction.  Instruction in the high school and middle school classes also tended to be evenly balanced, though mixed activities were a little less prevalent.  At 42%, the high schools had the highest percentage of teacher directed lessons. 

There were two concerns in the 99/00 DTA that related to physical arrangement of classrooms.  Sun Associates found that the district tended to place too much emphasis on computer lab instruction and not enough on classroom use of technology.  Sun also noted that some classroom computers were inaccessible to students and had been designated solely for teacher use.  Sun indicated that before computers may be used effectively, they must be located where students can access them, and in such a way that they promote student centered instruction in which students are actively involved in guiding their own learning.  The following data address characteristics of the physical arrangement of classrooms that may promote more effective use of technology.  These data deal only with observations that were done in classrooms -- not in computer labs.  Of the total 105 observations, 82 of them were in classrooms. 

District-wide, 80% of observed classrooms had more than one computer.  There were more classroom computers in elementary schools and fewer in middle and high schools, respectively.  The overall distribution of computers is fairly even among different levels of schools, but our middle and high schools tend to place more of their computers in labs, leaving fewer for classrooms.  One notable change this year is that many classrooms had access to wireless laptop “labs” of computers or to AlphaSmart keyboards, a low-cost alternative to regular computers.  That drove the average number of computers per classroom up to 4.8.  In reality, the average number of computers permanently stationed in classrooms is lower than that, but it’s encouraging that teachers can increase their access temporarily by bringing in these portable devices.  Labs averaged 27.5 computers per lab. 

Computers were most accessible to students in elementary school classrooms, less accessible in high schools, and least accessible in middle schools.  For the most part, computers were located where they may be used for small group or individual instruction.  Again, middle schools lagged behind elementary and high schools in that regard. 

In order to be used for large group instruction, classrooms should be equipped with some sort of device that allows the whole class to view a computer at the same time.  That could be either an LCD projector or a scan converter.  LCD projectors provide a much higher quality image than scan converters, but they also cost considerably more.  Due to those limitations, one would not expect many classrooms to have devices.  Yet, 62% of our classrooms do.  That’s up from 44% in 00/01.  That is a credit to schools that are investing in making their classroom computers more usable with large groups.  As prices decrease and quality improves, those devices will most likely become more widely used in our schools.  The newest television sets that are on the Kentucky bid list now have the capability of substituting as a larger computer display, so as older televisions are replaced, the usability will improve.  In the past, Fayette County has mostly bought 25” televisions, the smallest available on the state bid list.  That creates a problem for computer display because text is harder to read on smaller sets.  In the future, schools should purchase larger sets to accommodate this new use.  A listing of state price contract video equipment can be found at http://www.ket.org/education/updates/kycontvs.html. 

Below are samples of observers’ narrative and comments: 

·        4^th Grade Writing: The class was revising various beginning leads of students’ transactive writing pieces that were shown with a scan converter.  Teacher also noted the spell/grammar check feathers of Word and reviewed other editing features.  Students used AlphaSmarts after reviewing leads for peer conferencing and to work on their own writings.

·        Middle School Art: Art class is making covers for CD jewel cases.  Students are working independently and teachers are moving about and assisting.

·        Grades 2/3 Social Studies: Students are using HyperStudio to show where they would prefer to live if they were coming to the new world.  They are working/discussing with a partner and then creating  a three-slide project.  Each student creates one slide showing the location; one slide showing advantages of their location; and one slide showing disadvantages of living in their location.  Slides will include text and pictures.

·        High School Physics: Problem solving regarding falling objects (speed, distance, and acceleration).  Data acquisition probes were used with a computer to record characteristics and then computers were used to capture video of the experiment and create a graph.  Data were analyzed for equation of curve.

·        High School Architecture: Students were using AutoCad to design a home for Homebuilders Association Contest. 

Focus Groups 

The focus groups provided useful information because they allowed for more in-depth discussion of topics that participating groups felt were important.  The focus group questions are in appendix 2.  Below are representative comments from those groups.  All the comments were taken into consideration in arriving in overall rubric scores for the DTA.

Technology Resource Teachers

• What’s the best thing one of your teachers did with technology in his or her classroom last week?
• Unit of study for web page
• E-pals between high school and elementary
• Virtual heart with LCD projector
• Kidspiration software used to develop characterization traits – then used KidWorks Deluxe to write a story about those characters.
• How has technology made a difference in teaching and classroom management in your school?
• Time saver
• Behavior improves
• Access to general student data is easier
• Students take more responsibility for webpage development and other professional products
• Kids are doing research at much earlier ages (2^nd and 3^rd grades)
• Kids are more motivated to complete technology based homework than other homework.  Will take initiative to go to the library without being asked to.
• Some teachers are changing their teaching style to accommodate learning centers and other types of technology use.
• Increase in projects that require long term commitment
• Is technology used in your school to help close achievement gaps?  If so, how?
• Read 180
• Changes in instruction based on SRI and STAR Math
• Kids who don’t have access to computers at home are learning many more computer skills at school – narrowing the “digital divide”
• More parents are buying home computers because of skills kids bring home from school
• Diversity in Student Technology Leadership Program
• When students produce things on computers, you don’t see the “gap.”  No crumpled paper or poor handwriting.  Everybody is equal with it comes to the computer.  Email is blind to color, gender, etc.
• Kids more likely to edit with computer than with pencil and paper
• What percent of your students use technology to complete class work and assignments?
• 95% if you mean any time at all
• 40% if you mean at least once a day
• If we removed all the technology tomorrow, what would your students miss the most?
• The Internet
• Research
• Challenge of learning new things
• “Realizing there’s life outside their neighborhood.”
• What would your teachers miss the most?
• Teacher productivity tools
• Email
• Gradebook
• Presentation tools
• Creativity
• Do all students in your school get to use technology the same amount?
• No – through no fault of their own.  It depends on which teacher they have.
• What are the three greatest challenges you face in helping your students use technology effectively?
• Time
• Access to functioning resources and equipment.  Our schools (especially middle schools) need more technical support.
• Teacher willingness

Elementary Students

• Do you or your parents ever exchange email with your teacher?  Answers varied widely from school to school.  Some sample comments from those who did:
• About absences, band, forgotten assignments/notes, complaints
• Yes, our parents set up conferences with our teachers
• Yes, my parents use it a lot to keep updated or ask questions about stuff that is going on at school.
• What types of learning activities take place and how often?
• We use computers for studies on weather and 9/11
• Research projects, science fair projects
• Personal narratives
• We have our own school PrintShop business
• We use Accelerated Reader every day.
• The computer is a literacy center.  We go online to read books like fairy tales and then write a report about what we read.
• The teacher, every now and then, shows them websites on her computer and says they can come look at it.  They are NOT allowed though to use the computer at other times in the classroom.
• Some classes don’t have it as much.
• Any chance we get!
• Not near enough!
• We do PowerPoint presentations after we research on the Internet.
• Sometimes we use Excel to create charts for projects.
• Do you feel most students have the technology skills necessary to gain employment or transition into higher education?  (This question was originally designed for high school students, but the question was adjusted for younger students to make it more relevant.)  Again, answers varied widely from school to school.
• Yes.  You have to know about the computer to get a good job.”
• Maybe 50% of students do.  It depends on each student and what they do.
• No!  We don’t use it enough!
• If we took all the technology out of this school tomorrow, what would you miss the most?
• The Internet
• Thinking and math software
• Teachers would miss email, but not attendance
• Mrs. ____.  She would be gone too!
• Student Technology Leadership Program
• Yearbook
• Web pages
• Doing the morning show.
• “I like researching stuff.”

Middle School Students

• Do you or your parents ever exchange email with your teacher?
• Yes – about half.
• What types of learning activities take place and how often?
• Portfolio word processing, Internet research, problem solving, designing art on the computer, EarthQuest in Science, SRI and STAR Math
• Amount of use varied widely among students
• If we took all the technology out of this school tomorrow, what would you miss the most?
• Internet
• Being able to do school work on the computer
• “We’d have to fail because we wouldn’t have portfolios finished.”

 High School Students

• Do you or your parents ever exchange email with your teacher?  Answers varied widely from school to school.  Some sample comments from those who did:
• Yes, I’ve used it to email assignments to a teacher.
• Occasionally my parents do.
• What types of learning activities take place and how often?
• My use of technology occurs primarily in the 3 blocks in which I participate in an independent study with my school’s network administrator.  This time is used for programming, experience administering NT on Unix based servers, and researching other computer science related topics.
• I research fairly often at home on the Internet, as well as get some assignments.  We do experiments involving computers as well.
• Productivity software, content software, Internet for research – daily
• Creating web pages, PowerPoint, Internet research.
• We do not use technology in the class.  The teacher computers are 90% off limits.  All the software we have is in the library and I have never used that.  Teachers are unwilling to frequently use technology because they are required to teach other things that are required by the state, and not fun activities using technology.
• I search the Internet and use software in Physics class almost every day.
• Do you feel most students have the technology skills necessary to gain employment or transition into higher education?
• Yes
• Absolutely not
• I think most students do have sufficient skills to move on to college or employment.  I know that I am well prepared.
• If we took all the technology out of this school tomorrow, what would you miss the most?
• My reason for finding value in public schooling.  Without the full access to my school’s resources, public schooling would represent nothing more than a prerequisite to college, holding very little educational benefit or interest.
• I would miss the speed at which I am able to complete things on the computer at school.
• I would miss working with _______ (teacher).
• The Internet and information on the web!