![[back]](back_teal.GIF)
Back to Home Page
Return to REM 7500 Page
A Comprehensive Approach to using Internet Resources
to Enhance K-12
Education
Lorraine Sherry
April 29, 1996
Overview
Method and Procedures
References
Appendices
A Comprehensive Approach to using Internet Resources
to Enhance K-12
Education
Abstract
The Boulder Valley Internet Project (BVIP) - Initiative II creates a model for effective technology utilization that will be of interest to school districts across the United States. The premise of the project is that the Internet can provide a rich variety of tools and resources that can be used to enhance instruction and the development of information research skills by administrators, teachers, and students. The goals of this NSF-sponsored initiative include development and delivery of comprehensive district-wide teacher training for using the Internet and the establishment of a foundation for curriculum applications and development (Boulder Valley Internet Project, 1993).
RMC Research proposes to conduct a focus group, two case studies, surveys, and in-depth interviews. We also plan to lead an authentic assessment work group, and to analyze the BVIP system logs. This will enable us to evaluate the efficacy and impact of this project as a whole, as well as of its various components, and to generate recommendations for future development and applications.
Background and Summary
The Boulder Valley Internet Project is currently in its fourth year of a five-year plan. After the completion of the first year, Dr. Kenneth Wolf of the University of Colorado at Boulder conducted interviews and surveys as a formative evaluation. The data suggested that the first year was quite successful in its goal of training the 26 core teachers. The teachers felt that they were more knowledgeable about the use of Internet as a resource in teaching and learning. They reported that they applied their newly acquired skills and knowledge in their classrooms through activities and projects. Wolf and Black (1993) also identified a number of issues that directly impacted their use of the Internet and that will continue to affect the level of Internet use in the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) in future years as well: access, time, training, resources, and usability.
RMC Research was engaged to expand upon that formative evaluation. We are continuing to evaluate the training component to ascertain its value, both in terms of whether the training accomplished the short-term goals of being clear, useful, and engaging, and to determine whether the teachers implemented in their classrooms the information and skills they gained from the training. RMC is investigating the influence of the training on the development of new curriculum and teaching strategies, and the benefits of participation for the entire school and district. Toward the end of the evaluation cycle, we will examine the project to determine whether it is easily replicable or transportable to other districts, and how it can be improved. We will then disseminate our findings to the project leaders in a printed report, as well as posting it online on the BVIP network so that district teachers will have access it to it as well. We plan to give a presentation to the Boulder Valley School Board at the conclusion of the project. Additionally, we plan to present our findings at select national professional conferences and write a journal article describing this study.
During the two year of RMC's role as an evaluator, an E-mail survey was sent to 435 teachers, para-educators, and library media specialists, and one school principal, located at various schools scattered throughout the district, all of whom were frequent E-mail users. Eight educators were also interviewed in depth by trained interviewers. The next phase of the evaluation, namely, the case studies, the focus group, the assessment work group, and the analysis of the system logs, is described in this proposal.
Relevant Literature
Research in technology adoption and diffusion reveals that two approaches are generally used to gather data and create models. One looks at technology adoption from the viewpoint of the user, the other focuses on the complex needs of the organization. By conducting a reviw of relevant literature, we have identified three distinct "threads" or factors that directly impact Internet use in the classroom - technological factors, organizational factors, and individual factors.
Technological factors
Technological factors deal with hardware and software, including the physical aspects of the school network and the Internet, the type and age of available equipment, human-computer interface, reliability, ease of access, and ease of use. Recent studies of school districts that are building telecommunications infrastructures to connect their schools (Honey & Henriquez, 1993; Heaviside et al., 1995; Levin, 1995) describe a number of technological barriers to successful adoption and diffusion of Internet-based classroom activities, primarily limited funding for advanced telecommunications hook-ups, lack of equipment or poor equipment, and too few access points in the school building.
Many teachers cannot use the Internet to its fullest potential because they cannot gain regular and dependable access to the information superhighway. Dr. Wolf found this prblem with access and usability - two technological factors - was true for the BVIP. Full, district-wide connectivity will not be implemented until January 1997. There are still problems with busy signals, slow response times, disconnects, and inability to use the Internet for class activities if there is only one modem at the school. Those who do not have a graphical interface are not able to avail themselves of popular resources available on the WWW such as art exhibits and real-time weather maps.
Organizational factors
Organizational factors deal with the complex needs of an organization. These factors involve both the physical environment and the support environment in which Internet-based classroom activities are to be used. An example of the difference between an organizational factor concerning the physical environment and a technological factor can be described in the use of a library modem. The modem may be working and in good condition, satisfying the technological factor, but if it is constantly used by the librarian and is not open for use by any of the teachers, that would be an organizational factor.
The physical environment includes reasons and patterns for use, classroom facilities or other contexts in which learning will take place, and organizational arrangements such as class scheduling and grading practices. The support environment includes administrative and technical support, training, and information dissemination resources. In this vein, three of the five factors which Dr. Wolf found that affected BVSD's use of the Internet were related to organizational factors - time, training, and resources.
In contrast, Gross et al. (1970) focused on organizational factors from amanagement point of view, concentrating on the support aspect. These factors include management factors such as communicating a clear, shared vision of an educational innovation to all stakeholders and users, taking account of difficulties to which teachers may be exposed as they begin to implement the innovation, and providing mechanisms to identify and cope with unanticipated problems that may emerge during the period of implementation. To this list, Lawyer-Brook and Sherry (1996) would add lack of release time to pursue training, lack of incentives for teachers who take on new duties as a result of their Internet expertise, and lack of a shared knowledge base of curriculum implementation resources.
Individual factors
Besides organizational factors, the role of the individual user must be considered. Individual factors deal with technology adoption from the point of the user. Farquhar and Surry (1994) divide individual factors into two categories: user characteristics and user perceptions. User characteristics consist of the motivation, anxiety, knowledge base, prior experience, and skill level of the people who will be using the technology.
The novelty of an innovation brings to the new users a strange mix of curiosity and increased interest in exploring it, and of disorientation and discomfort if it seems too unfamiliar to them. Some people are naturally cautious; others are more curious, more willing to explore and innovate. Spielberger's model of epistemic curiosity (Spielberger & Starr, 1994) describes a dual process consisting of anxiety and curiosity. Individuals possess normal, random variations in both of these characteristics, both in personality traits, and in level of relaxation or agitation at any given time, depending on the context and situation in which they find themselves. The more uncomfortable they feel with a new innovation, the less willing they are to experiment with it.
On the other hand, user perceptions are the perceptions that potential adopters have about the innovation. These user perceptions are taken directly from Rogers' (1983) list:
The model states that the more positively people perceive the innovation with regard to these five characteristics, the more likely it will be that the innovation will be adopted.
The model states that the more positively people perceive the innovation with regard to these five characteristics, the more likely it will be that the innovation will be adopted.
In a recent study also targeting users' perceptions, Wilson and his colleagues (Wilson et al., 1996) reported that some individuals who resisted using a new school-wide Internet system felt intimidated by the experts within the school whom they labeled as "techno-gurus". They felt that these telecommunications experts were speaking a new, different, technological language, filled with mystical expertise, jargon, and commands that were simply not worth learning or dealing with.
Dr. Wolf, in the formative evaluation of the BVIP, describes similar user perceptions. Some teachers report that the Internet can be very difficult to navigate, and that many of its avenues are open only to those who are quite knowledgeable about the system. Hence, even if the system is fully implemented and is functioning at full capacity, simply gaining access will not solve all of the problems that teachers will encounter as they try to find useful resources and integrate them into their classrooms.
Table 1, roughly adapted from Farquhar and Surry (1994) and Gross et al. (1970), summarizes the most important individual and organizational factors that impact the ability of students and teachers to use the new educational innovation - the Internet as a resource for teaching and learning - to its fullest potential.
| Individual Factors | |
|---|---|
| User Characteristics | Perceived Attributes |
| Motivation Anxiety Knowledge Base Prior Experience Skill Level |
Is it compatible with users' needs and wants? Is it complex, or is it easy to use and maintain? Does it result in observable benefits? Does it offer some advantage over the existing system? Can it be tried out on a limited basis? |
Organizational Factors |
| Support Environment | |
| Patterns of Internet Use Reasons for Internet Use Classroom Facilities and Connectivity Availability of Tools and Resources Grading and Assessment Practices Class Scheduling |
Administrative Vision and Support Communication and Dissemination Channels Mechanisms to Identify and Solve Problems Training and Peer Mentoring Curriculum Implementation Resources Technical Support Resources Incentives for Staff Development |
Table 1. Factors influencing the adoption of new technologies
Changing a complex system
The Diffusion of Innovations model (Rogers, 1983) is the basis for 30 years of research on the diffusion of innovations within organizations. It is the social process by which people adopt a new idea or technology. Rogers envisioned a traditional, hierarchically structured organization (such as a school district) as a social system, in which people work to achieve a common goal through established practices and processes. The newness of a technological innovation creates uncertainty among members of the social system, which can adversely affect the rate of activities that take place as the new technology is adopted by the organization.
More recent researchers have used Rogers' model as a point of departure. Stockdill and Morehouse (1992) identify five critical factors that affect the successful adoption of new technology: educational need, user characteristics, content characteristics, technology considerations, and organizational capacity. Farquhar and Surry (1994) built on both Rogers' model and Stockdill and Morehouse's model in developing their Adoption Analysis tool. Successful implementation requires not only that adopters buy in to the use and application of the innovation, but that the adopting organization provide a worthy environment in which to use the new technology, as well as all of the resources and services needed to install and maintain it.
Other researchers have viewpoints which also echo Rogers' concerns. Peled et al. (1994), and Egan (1985) see the school district as a cultural entity with a common cultural blueprint that sets the pattern for the structures and processes that occur within and across the systems - the classroom, the school, the community, and the regional educational policy-making institutions. Morison (1984) suggests that opposition to innovations is cultural in nature, and stems from the normal instinct to protect not only one's self, but also one's way of life. People will withhold judgment, or even express disbelief about the dramatic claims of the new innovation, and will try to protect the existing system with which they identify themselves, as well as the existing society of which they consider themselves a part.
Studies of failed innovations (Gross et al., 1970; Teasley, 1996) can give us some insight into the process. These researchers reported that, though the initial attitude of the school administrators and teachers was positive, and that they were willing to expend the time and effort to implement the new technology, they ran into difficulties along the way. Teachers began to express frustration with the project, and administrators failed to give it their full support. Moreover, the administrators didn't have any mechanisms in place for dealing with unforeseen problems that might arise during the implementation process. Communications broke down, and teachers continued to run into problems they simply couldn't cope with.
School districts, like any other complex system, depend on good internal communications if they are to work effectively. A complex system, however, often embodies information that is "hard to get" (Ruelle, 1991). In other words, communication problems may arise between administration and teachers, or between teachers themselves. Carlson (1970) suggests that when the key change agents are dispersed (in his case, the district superintendents), then those who have clear communication channels with each other work closely together, whereas others remain isolated from the change process.
Gross et al. (1970) have identified several systemic factors that will affect the eventual implementation of any educational innovation: a clear vision of the innovation by administrators and teachers, the staff's skills and capacity to implement the innovation, the availability of required tools and resources, the compatibility of the school's organizational arrangements (such as grading system and scheduling of classes) with the new innovation, and the wholehearted support of the administration for the innovation and for the teachers who are in the process of implementing it.
We may then ask, is it possible for a complex system to change itself? Morison (1984) believes that the answer is "yes" - provided the organization begins by "defining for itself its grand object, and see to it that grand object is communicated to every member of the group" (p. 142). Peters (1988) puts it this way: "what matters is that everyone who works for you and with you observe you embracing the topic with both arms and your calendar. What they need to observe is your obvious, visible and dramatic, determination to batter down all barriers to understanding and implementation" (p. 501).
Systemic change is an immense field in its own right. For this evaluation, we will consider various factors of systemic change, but the focus is on technology adoption and diffusion versus general systemic change.
Research Questions
After carefully looking at the relevant research literature and discussing the project with the BVIP project director, five central research questions were formulated.
Significance of the Proposed Study
This evaluation has three major goals which are significant not only to the school district, but also to other researchers who are attempting to implement a similar innovation.
Research Role
According to Patton (1987), "[e]valuation research, particularly at the local program level, has been largely nontheoretical" (p. 39). In contrast, we have taken an approach that is pragmatic and highly concrete, as well as inductive. In addition to building a sound theoretical base, we have looked and factored in the need for specific data that is relevant to the project, focusing on issues that are helpful in monitoring or fine-tuning program operations. Currently, the evaluation's scope is ming from a more global inquiry with the survey and interviews to a more detailed examination with the case studies and focus groups.
As independent program evaluators, the role of RMC Research is threefold. We will provide
Evaluation Design
Since we are evaluating a complex system, we need to use multiple measures that produce converging lines of inquiry. This approach involves both qualitative and quantitative methods, as seen in Table 2. The five research questions were examined and matched with the most appropriate data collection instruments. For example, the initial information on the effectiveness of the training component was gathered from the surveys. The data were supplemented and enriched by the follow-up interviews. The chart also shows the components that have been completed and that are still in progress. We will now examine the various research questions to discuss the approach and instruments to be used to answer each one.
| x | E-mail Survey | In-Depth Interviews | Assessment Work Group | Focus Group | Case Studies | BVIP System Logs |
| How effective was the training component of the project? | done | done | (dna) | (dna) | (dna) | (dna) |
| How did the project specifically affect the participants' use of the technology? | done | done | (dna) | (dna) | In Process | In Process |
| What was the impact of the project on curriculum and instruction? | done | done | In Process | In Process | In Process | (dna) |
| What was the impact of the project on the schools as a whole? the district as a whole? | done | done | (dna) | (dna) | In Process | Proposed |
| What are the possible future uses of this model? | done | done | In Process | In Process | In Process | (dna) |
Table 2. Data Collection Strategy Matrix
Question 1. How effective was the training component of the project?
The "training of trainers" model was used by the BVIP to create a core group of lead teachers. The teachers that were trained the first year became instructors and resource personnel for new trainees during the second and third years, and continued to create and gather curriculum using the Internet. The objectives of the initial training for the core group and the later generations of participant teachers were to become proficient at E-mail, to become comfortable at investigating Internet resources, and to become experienced at exploring ways to integrate the use of the Internet into their curricula.
To determine how well the training achieved these objectives, RMC Research originally proposed a series of E-mail assessments for all Boulder Valley School District teachers who have received training through the project. The assessments would have utilized three methodologies: a general information E-mail survey with follow-up in-depth interviews, a scavenger hunt, and a lesson plan jigsaw.
The following sections discuss these approaches in greater detail.
E-Mail Survey
The BVIP general information survey is crucial to the ongoing support of the technology, and provides data which illuminates the ways in which BVSD staff are using the Internet resources. To create the survey instrument, we started with a set of questions generated by Libby Black in 1994, plus some questions which had been pilot-tested in two other ongoing Internet evaluation projects. We then structured a questionnaire which was divided into the following sections: demographics; Internet experience; Internet use; impact on curriculum, instruction, and students; impact on school and district; future implications; and general questions, thereby paralleling the five research questions. The BVIP project leaders prefaced the questionnaire with a note of greetings, with explicit directions for filling it out, contact information and a local telephone number, information about filling out a paper-and-pencil survey if desired, and a statement that only the collective results (no individual results) will be reported. They estimated that it would take the average educator about fifteen minutes to fill it out and E-mail it back to the BVIP project office.
There were 42 questions in all - some forced-choice, some multiple-choice, and some to be filled in with a short sentence or phrase. Typical questions included: what originally motivated you to get an Internet account? what is your comfort level using Internet resources? what is your primary use of the Internet? with whom do you communicate over the Internet? what was your greatest triumph using the Internet? your greatest barrier? has the Internet had an impact on your professional development? how would you describe its impact? which Internet feature have you found most valuable and why? have you developed and/or shared any Internet-based lesson plans or projects?
The questionnaire was distributed via E-mail to 935 educators. However, of the 935 E-mail addresses, only 435 of them were current. After about a month, a follow-up reminder was sent to all nonparticipants. We received 142 responses, a response rate of about 33%. Data were collected by the BVIP project office and E-mailed to RMC Research. It was analyzed using an Excel spreadsheet. Responses to most questions were reported as percentages or in chart form; responses to open-ended questions were reported verbatim. Responses to open-ended questions were clustered into naturally emerging categories, which were then checked by a second researcher to assure reliability.
Strict confidentiality is used in all our data collection instruments. No names are used; all respondents are assigned an identification number. There is no way for an independent researcher or administrator to obtain the name of any individual participant.
The preliminary data indicated that respondents had a very high comfort level with e-mail use, and a high comfort level with other Internet resources, so their training has effectively prepared them to use the system. Typical connects involve checking e-mail, reading large numbers of messages from LISTSERVs, doing gopher searches, exploring, accessing databases such as NASA, telnetting to CARL for library research, finding resources and integrating them into the core curriculum.
Information from the survey, as well as the in-depth interviews, will be reported in the Boulder Valley Internet Project - Initiative II Interim Report. In general, the survey results showed that the training component of the project was successful in meeting its objectives.
In-depth Interviews
In-depth interviews are being used to gather data that addresses some of the key variables of interest in this study. The data from the interviews will be used to enrich and illuminate the survey findings and to offer some new, personal insights into actual situations encountered by teachers as they attempt to use the Internet for finding educational resources, communicating with peers and colleagues, and using Internet-based activities in their classrooms. As part of our current evaluation, eight teachers were selected by the BVIP project leaders to participate in in-depth interviews that were conducted by trained researchers. All eight interviewees were part of the initial core of peer trainers, were active users of technology, and had used some Internet-based activities in their classrooms.
In partnership with BVIP, RMC Research developed a structured interview consisting of 20 questions, pilot-tested it with two teachers, and revised it accordingly. The interview questions were similar to those in the survey, but probed respondents in greater depth. A few new questions were added: what are your students doing with the Internet? where do you go for help when you run into problems? what are your students using the Internet for? what assessment tools do you use?
Four BVIP teachers were given a two-hour training session by RMC Research, and were assigned to interview the remaining six teachers. Interviews lasted approximately two hours, and were taped and transcribed verbatim. Drafts of the transcripts were then shown to the participants, for their approval. Tapes and transcripts were then given to RMC Research for data analysis.
We have always asked permission from interviewees to tape and transcribe any interviews. It is also our policy to show the transcripts to the interviewees after the tape is transcribed, and to elicit any corrections that they would like us to make.
In the data analysis, the names were removed, and copies of the transcripts were coded by question. The transcripts were photocopied. Portions of each transcript, keyed to specific research questions, were cut and sorted into five folders. Within each folder, these slips of paper were then organized into naturally emerging sub-categories. An internal memo was drafted up and reviewed by another researcher to be sure that the process of cutting-and-pasting the responses into these subcategories was replicable. Demographic and numeric information were then summarized in a database; responses to open-ended questions were listed verbatim under each question.
The interview information was then combined with the survey information to yield converging, rather than diverging, lines of inquiry. This combined information will form the basis of the Interim Report, which is currently in preparation.
The interview results correlated highly with the survey results and with the initial findings by Dr. Wolf. The training has been successful, comfort level with Internet tools is high, teachers and students are able to locate timely and relevant resources, and these resources are expanding and enriching the curriculum. In addition to the formal training that they have received through BVIP, some participants have requested additional workshops in site-based small groups to meet the needs of particular schools and programs.
Scavenger Hunt and Lesson Plan Jigsaw
The scavenger hunt was originally proposed to validate the data from the survey and the interviews in which respondents reported that the training was, indeed, effective. The scavenger hunt and lesson plan jigsaw were designed to test the participants' perceptions of the expertise acquired through the training component of the project. In this case, the value of a performance assessment was seen to demonstrate the actual versus the perceived skill level.
Recognizing that teachers had contributed substantial information via the interviews and susrveys, and the heavy demands placed on the teaching staff during the current school year, the BVIP project leaders chose not to implement the scavenger hunt and the lesson plan jigsaw. We will substitute classroom observations (see Case STudies, Question 2) for performance assessment.
Question 2. How did the project affect participants' use of technology?
The second research question examines the impact of the project on the teachers' actual use of the Internet. The three areas of focus for this question are whether teachers are using the system, how they are using the system, and barriers to using the system.
E-Mail Survey and In-Depth Interviews
The E-mail survey and the in-depth interviews have given us baseline information on the following issues: ease of connectivity, availability, use of dedicated lines or modems, whether the teachers use the system at home or at work, and if the teachers have sufficient training and time to explore the system. There is a large spread in the average number of hours spent on the Internet per week. One interviewee reported spending little time because the BVSD and CU- Boulder systems are often busy or are not connecting properly. Participants connect primarily from home (60%), less often from school via modem (15%), or from school using a direct connection (25%). As Dr. Wolf has indicated, educators who can access the Internet from home stand a better chance of using Internet information in the classroom. This is an inference that needs to be addressed in the proposed case studies.
From preliminary data, we found that the respondents initially report that their primary reason for using the Internet is E-mail, followed by the WWW and gopher. 65% report that they are still using a text-based interface, whereas many of the WWW sites that contain information they would like to access, such as art exhibits and real- time weather maps, require a graphical interface. As we gather more data, the usage patterns are changing, especially in the use of the WWW.
Case Studies
Case studies answer "how" and "why" questions where
The use of case studies also enables us to cross-check the self-reported data that was gathered in the survey and interviews. We propose to expand our insights into the schools' organizational change and to address the problem of self-reported data by carrying out case studies in two schools that are both high-end users of Internet technology - Platte Middle School and Nederland Elementary School.
We have purposefully selected these two sites due to
Sample letters of permission (see Appendix A) have been sent to the BVIP project leaders, who will make any necessary revisions, before sending them to the principals of the two schools. Since Nederland Elementary has been the subject of many research studies recently, the administrators might not cooperate. In that event, we will substitute another equivalent middle school - either Angevine or Centennial - both of which have had good Internet access since the beginning of the project.
Each case will use three data collection instruments: observations of a sample of classrooms that are currently using Internet-based activities, a brief survey of school administrators and support staff, and short focused interviews of a sample of teachers, administrators, staff, parents, and students. These multiple sources of evidence will lend construct validity to our evaluation. Moreover, using the same data collection strategy at two different schools will lend external validity through the use of replication logic in multiple-case studies. Reliability will be strengthened by a carefully designed case-study protocol - i.e., the five research questions, procedures that are dealt with in researcher training sessions, and the use of the same instruments by each researcher to deal with each data collection activity (see Yin, 1994). Strict confidentiality will apply to all analysis and reporting of data.
In the case studies, we will not duplicate information already gathered from the E-mail survey and the in-depth interviews, but will concentrate on organizational and individual factors that were not addressed by either of these instruments. As shown in Table 2, the Data Collection Strategy Matrix, the case studies are intended to address research Questions 2 through 5.
Case Studies - Classroom observations
Depending on the availability of classes using the Internet, we plan to select four classrooms per site in which teachers are currently using Internet-based activities. Experienced evaluators will observe an entire lesson each time. The researchers will work in teams of two to corroborate collected data. This will enhance the reliability of the data gathering process. After a brief introduction to the class on the purpose of the visit and the confidentiality of the information, the evaluators will remain unobtrusive throughout the duration of the lesson. Follow-up observations will be conducted if the data warrants it.
We plan to investigate how the use of the Internet affects teaching -learning situations, focusing on four basic topics - motivation, management, instruction, and expectations. The instrument (a paper-and-pencil checklist) that will be used simplifies the recording of complex interactions that are taking place in the classroom. A prototype of our classroom observation checklist is shown in Appendix B.
The observations will mainly focus on research questions 2 and 3. For Question 2, teachers' use of the technology, the researachers will record the average level of complexity of Internet use, on a Likert scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). For Question 3, the four topics - motivation, management, instruction, and expectations - will be addressed using a Likert-type scale to measure degree and type of motivation, type of classroom management, degree of critical thinking/inquiry learning, and general expectations of class performance. Under expectstions, we will also look for any indications of gender or ethnic bias.
To measure time on task, the researchers will record the number of students who are currently engaged in a meaningful level of activity, at 5-minute intervals. The number of engaged students will be recorded under the time interval in the classroom management box. When the instrument has been fully designed, it will include areas for comments and field notes, as well as any other important categories of behavior determined to be significant to this study.
Since it is important to remain unobtrusive in an already technology-focused classroom, we do not plan to use video cameras at this time. If, however, the teacher is amenable to the use of a video camera, then we would like to shoot a few classroom scenes where the students are actively involved in an Internet-based activity, and use these video clips in a multimedia presentation for the Boulder Valley School Board. This would be most helpful in advertising the success of the project to the key administrators who have the most power to support its continued implementation.
Case Studies - Survey
At this time, good baseline data from the E-mail survey has been gathered regarding the use of the Internet by teachers. Thus, the case study surveys will contain questions that are relevant to the school administrators and support staff, including the secretaries and the paraprofessionals. Sample questions will deal with technology implementation, facilitating conditions, barriers, impact, and systemic features such as acceptance, desired outcomes, compatibility with needs and wants, and sustainability. They will include but not be limited to: what training have you had? how do you connect to the Internet? how do you spend your time on a typical connect? what is your comfort level with Internet tools? what are your reasons for using the Internet? with whom do you communicate via E-mail? what do you like best about using the Internet? is the support component effective? where do you go for help when you run into problems? how have you seen interest in the Internet spread throughout your school? how would you characterize the attitudes of your colleagues at school with regard to Internet training and use? what incentives do you have for using the Internet, or for seeking further staff development using Internet resources? what changes would you like to see in the BVIP?
A brief survey will also be done with students in order to gather data on their experiences. Topics will cover areas such as access, usage, motivation, interest level, comfort level, and background knowledge. Questions will be adapted from two pilot-tested questionnaires generated by Libby Black. (See Appendix C.)
Paper-and pencil surveys will be distributed directly on-site, and will be collected the same day. Data analysis will be similar to the E-mail survey. (See Question 1.)
Case Studies - Interviews
After examining the data gathered from the case study surveys and observations, areas that need more attention will be explored more fully by the use of focused interviews. These tailored interviews may include teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, staff, parents, and students. The questions from these focused interviews will be aligned with the research questions, but will be especially created to target those areas of need. Interviews will last no more than fifteen minutes each, and will be semi-structured, containing no more than five questions each. Some examples of these questions would be: how would you characterize district support for the Internet? how has the elimination of planning periods affected your use of the Internet? how has the 100% reimbursement for professional development related to content, but only 50% reimbursement related to pedagogy, affected your use of the Internet?
All interviews will be taped and transcribed. Data analysis will be done in the same way as it was for the in-depth interviews (see Question 1).
The proposed case studies will reveal to what extent the teachers are using the Internet as part of their instructional delivery in the classroom; their reasons for using it; and which features of the Internet receive more attention and/or are more useful than others. In addition, systemic issues and organizational factors will be examined such as the role of the administration in supporting the teachers' use of the Internet, resources available to support teacher use of the Internet in their classrooms, and whether there are mechanisms in place to identify teachers who need extra support in their use of the Internet.
BVIP System Logs
By January 1997, all schools in the district will be connected to the Internet. At the beginning of the project, only three middle schools were connected to the Internet. Meanwhile, connectivity is irregularly distributed throughout the district, with better access at the middle school level, less at the elementary school level, and almost none at the high school level. The E-mail survey has revealed that students who come from a well-connected middle school experience frustration when that connectivity is not available at the high school.
We have just received BVIP system log information covering the period from August 1995 through January 1996, for all schools in the district. This will help us to establish current network connectivity patterns, such as the proportion of regular users, infrequent users, and non-users among the 935 teachers and staff who currently have E-mail addresses. However the logs contain no information about frequency or duration or use, or which Internet sites were accessed. We also need to know how many teachers do not have E-mail accounts, as well as which E-mail addresses belong to teachers and which ones belong to administrators.
Question 3. What was the impact of the project on curriculum and instruction?
The ultimate measure of the success of an educational project is its impact on teaching and learning. One of the goals of the BVIP is to encourage the enrichment and/or expansion of current curriculum, or the replacement of the current curriculum with one that is more relevant and meaningful. With the adoption of Goals 2000, it would also be advantageous if the new curriculum is aligned with national and state standards. Curriculum, of course, does not stand alone. The effectiveness of instructional delivery of the new or modified curriculum is also important. Examining actual classroom practice and the associated student outcomes from instruction linked with the Internet can help define the effectiveness of the instruction.
To examine the interface between the teachers' use of the Internet and the curriculum and instruction, three approaches are suggested. First, feedback on changes in curriculum and instruction have been revealed through the E-mail survey and in-depth interviews. Second, to evaluate the curricula used in the classroom, RMC staff will assist BVSD teacher participants in developing an assessment that will consider variables related to the quality of a curriculum unit that uses the Internet. This instrument will be distributed through the SAMI database. SAMI is a database designed to lend support to curriculum and instruction, and is located on the WWW at the following URL:
Finally, to add to the richness of the data and the understanding of how and why teachers make the changes they do, and how and why the resultant outcomes occur, RMC Research proposes to conduct a focus group on the impact of the Internet on curriculum and instruction.
Preliminary information from the survey and interviews indicates that teachers' initial staff development focuses on using Internet tools and gaining comfort with them. They then progress to communication with their colleagues and retrieval of relevant educational materials, and finally to classroom integration of Internet activities. We find a similar progression on the project's emphasis from technological factors to individual factors to organizational factors that are affecting this chain of events. Despite the perception that actual impact of using the Internet in the curriculum tends to be minimal, and students often express impatience when the system is down, teachers recognize its potential to motivate students and to help them develop good research and communication skills.
Areas that need more investigation are ambiguity about performance assessment and evaluation of Internet-based activities, not knowing where to find useful information in specific content areas, need for release time for staff development, and not seeing connections to the curriculum.
E-Mail Survey and In-Depth Interviews
Data reported by the 142 survey participants reveal that the two most popular Internet resources were timely information and contacts with other educators, followed by lesson plans and projects. The least accessed resources were model content standards and grants. Whether or not the teachers are aligning the curriculum with the standards needs to be addressed in the focus group.
Primary contacts were other BVSD teachers, friends and family, and teachers in other districts . Very few had any contact with school reform experts or BVSD administrators. Some of the out of district teachers are found on LISTSERVS or other educational projects, where they have posted messages asking for partner schools, classes, or teachers to join in collaborative projects. "Sharing ideas" and "curriculum resources" were selected by about half the participants. Thus, we are beginning to see a definite impact of the project on curriculum and instruction. However, issues of school reform, curriculum evaluation, and student assessment are not being fully addressed.
Focus group
The focus group will gather five to ten educators throughout the district. It will address strategies, benefits, problems, and content of instruction that incorporates use of the Internet, Generally, a focus group is homogeneous (Krueger, 1994), with all participants sharing certain characteristics in common. Since it focuses on curriculum, it will be made up of teachers who have worked extensively with curriculum development, from various schools throughout the district, but who may or may not be using the Internet at this time. We would like to have a mix of teachers with different connectivity, experience, grade level, and subject area. In the focus group, we will explore benefits, problems, strategies, and content, to evaluate the current and potential role of Internet in the classroom.
We have FAXed a permission letter to the BVIP project leader (see Appendix A), who has agreed to give us input on which teachers have the richest background in working with Internet-based curriculum. Participants need to be willing to participate, and to have the capacity to verbalize their views within a group setting, as well as having the necessary background knowledge. A few of the teachers who participated in the in-depth interviews will also take part in the focus group because of their unique perceptions. Letters will then be sent to each potential participant by RMC.
The focus group will last 3 1/2 hours, including a break. It will take place at a neutral site in Boulder. Since the moderator plays a key role in the focus group interview and is responsible for getting all participants involved and keeping the discussion focused, the moderator will be Dr. Dianna Lawyer-Brook, a skilled focus group facilitator.
Good incentives for focus group participants are money and food. If the focus group takes place in the daytime, participating teachers will need to dedicate 1/2 day of their time to it. BVIP will pay for a substitute for each participant. However, if participants prefer to meet from 5 to 8 PM, then BVIP will reimburse them for their time, at their regular pay rate. RMC Research will provide refreshments during the break. Teacher participants will decide which days and times are convenient for the group as a whole.
The opening questions will concentrate on each participant's current Internet connectivity and his/her experience with curriculum development. The two broad questions to be addressed by the group will be: how has the use of the Internet impacted your classroom curriculum and instruction? what are the components of effective use of the Internet in curriculum and instruction?
We will then move to more specific "how" questions, such as: how can teachers move from teacher use of the Internet to student use as an integral part of their studies? how has the change in technology (from emphasis on gopher in their training sessions to emphasis on the WWW now) affected the types of resources that are really useful in the classroom? how can Internet activities enrich, expand, or replace current curriculum? how can the use of keypals and collaborative projects on the Internet enhance students' global and multi-cultural awareness? how can it become a more useful research, communication, and information sharing resource for students? Additional questions will be found in Appendix D. We will also use some of the questions that have already been pilot-tested in the in-depth interviews. For the ending question, we will have each participant state their final position on critical areas of concern.
The entire focus group will be recorded with a cassette tape recorder and transcribed verbatim. While Dr. Lawyer-Brook acts as moderator, the other researcher will take notes. Immediately after the focus group interview, the two researchers will debrief, to capture first impressions and highlights of the session. Then the tape will be transcribed. Primary attention will be paid to comments that are specifically related to research Questions 3 and 5 (impact on curriculum and instruction, and future uses of the model). Sections of the transcript will then be coded with the number 3 or 5, and by sub-topics, depending on which research question was addressed. Within each research question, the information will be cut and assembled into naturally occurring categories. Both researchers will examine the clustered information as a team, and will come to a consensus about the categories.
An internal report, written by RMC and based on the information gleaned from the focus group, will then be shared with each of the participants, for review, verification, and comment. Also, since one of the potential disadvantages of a focus group over an individual interview is "groupthink", we need to compare responses to the focus group questions with responses to similar questions in the case studies, the in-depth interviews, and the general information survey for consistency. Later, the internal report will be integrated into the final report.
Curriculum Assessment Work Group
Though resources and strategies are changing, the issue of assessment - especially authentic assessment - has barely been examined. Only 21 out of the 142 survey respondents used any assessment tools. One very good reason for this is timing. For example, if their students aren't connected, there might not be Internet-based instruction, let alone assessment. Others mention that they use their "eyes and ears" rather than any tool that produces measurable results.
In the in-depth interviews, some teachers commented that assessment is subjective; others based their assessment on direct observations of student activities such as: do they know how to use a browser? did they send me E-mail? One insightful comment was this:
We haven't done any kind of assessment, probably because we haven't done much instruction. We need to find out: did they like it? how easy was it for them? what do they think they learned? We need to decide on the goals and objectives - that would then determine the assessment. Is it skills? attitude? finding information? internalizing information? creating something?We will begin by taking both commercial and teacher-created performance assessments and a number of sample curriculum units to analyze. We will assist BVIP teacher participants in creating an authentic assessment that will include a number of critical factors such as utility, ease of use, outcomes, suggestions for improvement, and other related questions designed to evaluate specific strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum and the implementation process. These factors will be organized with corresponding sets of rubrics to measure various aspects of effectiveness or a curriculum unit.
The teachers themselves will help to create the evaluation design, and will be asked to organize these key components and their corresponding data collection tools, such as rating scales, open-ended questions, and free style response formats. This newly created performance assessment will be used to judge curriculum units placed on the Science And Math Initiatives (SAMI) database, those which will be developed by BVIP in the future, and those which are available elsewhere on the Internet that the teachers may wish to use. The assessment tool will also provide a rating for the degree of innovation with the new technology. The prototype could be used to improve instruction on the Internet, provide communication about outcomes, and encourage accountability.
The curriculum assessment work group will take place after the focus group. Participants in the focus group will be invited to participate in the work group if they wish, in addition to district teachers who are seen to have the most experience in the use of assessments with Internet-based activities. Purposeful sampling of participants, scheduling, and incentives will be the same as for the focus group; in fact, the same letter is used for both groups.
Question 4. What was the impact of the project on the schools as a whole? the district as a whole?
RMC Research proposes four methodologies to assess whole/school district impact: the E-Mail survey, in-depth interviews, the two case studies (see Question 1), and the analysis of BVIP system logs (see Question 2).
E-Mail Survey and In-Depth Interviews
Since the Internet can be thought of as both a library of resources and a means of communication among a community of learners, educators are now beginning to participate in collaborative projects, which combine both of these aspects. The results from the survey and interviews in relationship to Question 4 stressed:
When examining the learning community, 43 oukt of the 142 survey respondents participated in a variety of collaborative projects on a variety of topics including sharing weather information with a school in Sweden, finding keypals among the Inuit Indians, communicating online in foreign languages, and interviewing experts and professionals.
When asked, "how many other teachers have expressed an interest in the Internet, after seeing what you are doing with it?", nearly half of the respondents reported "more than two", about 30% reported "one or two", and only about 20% reported "none". Thus, nearly three-quarters of those queried have had a positive impression on their peers. Not only do the respondents feel that others are using the Internet, but also that the respondents have made a positive impact on their peers with regard to Internet use.
It is at this point that patterns of usage, an organizational factor, becomes noticeable. One interesting response to an in-depth interview question was this: "
In my technology classes, students read their E-mail at the start of every class. Teachers use E-mail. The science teacher uses the Kids as Global Scientists project, two new-user social studies teacher use gopher; most teachers use E-mail.However, approximately only 10% of the survey respondents' students use the Internet as an integral part of their academic program. Most report that none of their students do, due to lack of access and student accounts.
Another insightful response from the interviews concerning motivation was this:
The kids come down and do a search on Netscape all the time. Teachers who are trying to integrate technology need a good starting place. I'm everybody's tech support - I teach classes for the kids, for the teachers, do maintenance, and all the planning. I think I'm the only person who will get release time next year. Other teachers have no release time, so it doesn't work.Thus, questions of incentives and administrative support for teachers who take on new duties as a result of their newfound expertise must be addressed in the case studies.
Another administrative challenge has been expressed by the prect director on possible saturation of the system if all educators try to join at the same time. Devoting more time to enticing new users may be a mistake if the connectivity is not available. There must be a balance between the expansion of the system and the addition of new users.
Case Studies
The case studies will include inquires into the use of the Internet by the building and district staff in non-teaching areas such as using the Internet as a vehicle to disseminate academic calendars, performance and sports schedules, lunch menus, and after-school opportunities. They will enable us to answer questions such as these: how does the presence of Internet capability affect the non- teaching staff such as administrators, librarians, and parents? how are students and teachers communicating with others in classrooms, communities, states, or countries? are students beginning to reach beyond the physical limitations of the classroom to obtain information relevant to their learning? are students accessing remote files? are they participating in collaborative projects and publishing their classroom projects? how well is the current model working?
There are some questions which can only be answered in the case studies. Are the barriers to Internet diffusion through the school based on physical/technology problems, or are they political and organizational in nature? What implications has the elimination of planning periods had on the integration of Internet activities into the classroom? What effect will the new contract have on teachers' time, interest, and ability to spread Internet use through the schools and the district via inservice training and technical support? And, considering that the School Board is in favor of new technology - but only as it relates to specific content areas and not to pedagogy or new teaching strategies for new innovations - how will that affect the curriculum integration component of the project?
Within the case studies, the surveys will elicit responses from people who are not currently using Internet technology, either in teaching or as part of their administrative responsibilities. This information is important, since the survey only collected data from teachers who had E-mail accounts, and the interviews only dealt with high-end technology users.
BVIP System Logs
At this time, we have a listing which shows each educator in the district, their school, and the date of their last login. Thus, from these system logs, we are able to ascertain the number of educators who are frequent, infrequent, or non Internet users at each school. However, we still need to determine the effectiveness of the "Trainer of Trainers" model - one of the key tenets on which this project is based. The premise is that the initial core group of lead teachers from all grade levels and a cross-section of disciplines will evolve into a team of peer trainers, instructing their colleagues in the use of the Internet.
The model of Internet deployment comprises both a horizontal model and a vertical, feeder system model. The horizontal model involves deployment of the technology in three middle schools which have Internet labs, and a cadre of teachers from different schools who teach the same curriculum. This is intended to provide a larger testbed for specific, area-related Internet curriculum as well as facilitating collaborative projects among a large group of students at the same grade level, but in different schools. (See Figure 1.)
Place Figure 1 about here.
Figure 1: Horizontal model
The vertical model involves the three schools that were initially connected to the Internet, that are supposed to create pioneering mentoring and cross-cutting curriculum projects, thereby linking students who have matriculated upwards with younger students. (See Figure 2.)
Place Figure 2 about here.
Figure 2: Vertical Model
The data gathered from the system logs, as well as from the case studies, E-mail survey, and in-depth interviews, will be examined in diagram form to analyze the above Internet adoption and dissemination patterns. We need to know where the initial 26 core trainers were located, how many other staff they trained, and where the second cohort of trainees are located. We also need to develop a sense of where the current Internet experts are located, who is connecting with whom, and which teachers have developed excellent curriculum units using a single modem in the school. (See Figure 3.)
Place Figure 3 about here.
Figure 3: Trainer of Trainers Model
Question 5. What are the possible future uses of this model?
This type of model assumes that there will be resistance to change at the beginning of the project. During the planning phase, the project coordinators assumed there would be various levels of buy-in throughout the district. In addition, over the 5-year period, user skills and comfort level change, the technology changes, the context changes, and the level of administrative support also changes. Select adopters may enthusiastically become territorial over specific resources such as a library modem. The system may begin to reach saturation. Not only are we dealing with a complex system - we are also dealing with a dynamic system. The mix of technological, organizational, and individual factors that are at play within this complex system must be addressed by using all the data collection instruments in the matrix. These trends need to be considered when addressing future uses of the model.
E-Mail Survey and In-Depth Interviews
The interviews have already given us some insight into the feasibility and replicability of the project for other sites. Dynamic trends such as the positive and negative results of growth, and reasons for this growth or lack of it, are referred to in the following comments:
At the beginning there was almost nobody on it; at the end of the year it was always busy. A fair amount of our staff is interested in connectivity in their rooms.Even those who are resistant to technology are at least aware that Internet is there, and there might be something they need to check out in the future. But, they are feeling so stretched professionally that to add one more thing to learn is really hard.
The kids are becoming the salespeople within the school. Instead of going to the library, they want to do their research on the Internet. Word of mouth is getting back to the teachers - if they found the time, they would come down and use it and then it would go back to their classes.
There's some reluctance, but if everyone wanted to get on right now, we couldn't handle it - we don't have the equipment.
Future uses of the model by other districts will depend on the support of the administrators and key personnel. The survey data have revealed that the participants' perceptions of the attitude toward curriculum development and technical support by the administration and their colleagues, as well as by librarians, parents, and key players, is below the median, on a Likert scale of 1 (unfavorable) to 5 (highly favorable). This possible factor would have implications for other districts considering the model.
Forty percent of the BVIP participants surveyed indicated that they had taken on new duties as a result of their ability to share information and advice with new Internet users. The more they learn, the more work they have to do. An area that ne eds to be addressed in greater detail in the remainder of the study is whether staff doing additional work are rewarded with any incentives in the form of release time, extra pay, or additional support. We also need to find out whether the elimination of planning periods and the new reimbursement schedule for professional development - factors that did not exist when the project first began - are beginning to have an impact on district-wide adoption and diffusion of the Internet, and on patterns and reasons for Internet use.
Curriculum Assessment Work group, Focus Group, and Case Studies
From the survey and interview data, we have a good overall picture of the Internet usage patterns of the Boulder Valley educators. At this time, we need to probe individual educators to reveal the interplay of the various factors that impact their use of the Internet, especially with regard to curriculum integration. Thus, we are moving from breadth to depth. For the focus group and the work group, and also for the interviews which are part of the case studies, we will have to do some purposive selection from a pool of several hundred educators and members of the community. These individuals may not necessarily be representative of a larger population in the way that a random sample might be; they need to have certain characteristics such as expertise in developing new curriculum, willingness to spend time participating in the creation of a performance assessment, or willingness to participate in in-depth interviews.
Once all the data have been collected and analyzed, we will look for coherent and important examples, themes, and patterns in the data, to begin to flesh out answers to all five research questions. With this total picture, the feasibility of replicating the model at other sites will be examined in the context of Question 5.
Limitations of the Design
We realize that no amount of self-reporting can ever match a performance assessment strategy to determine how proficient teachers are with the system. Hence, classroom observations are an integral part of our research design. Since all the data must be gathered by the end of May 1996, we are limited to two full days of classroom observation, in a small sample of four high-Internet- use classes. Also, we only have two researchers available to do all the data collection, transcribe all the tapes, and write the reports. The final report is due at the end of June 1996.
We would like to use a video camera to capture the teacher-student interactions in classes that use the technology effectively, but if we do so, we may sacrifice the element of unobtrusiveness. This is a trade-off that must be dealt with at the time we make our initial contact with the classroom teachers.
Due to lack of time and resources, we can only carry out our case studies at two schools. Though we are using multiple methods and converging lines of inquiry to investigate a contemporary phenomenon in context, two cases may not be sufficient to reveal all the factors that are involved in the adoption and diffusion of Internet technology throughout such as complex system as the Boulder Valley School District.
Overall, we have agreed to carry out this evaluation because the project is innovative and because we are able to investigate variables that have not been systematically included in other studies of this type. We realize the project is under-funded for the amount of work that we are expected to do; hence, we must limit our data collection activities to the time and resources at hand. Follow-up studies at more sites, interviews with more people, and a second focus group would be highly recommended.
Reporting Results
All data will be gathered, checked for accuracy, and stored at RMC in a case study database. This includes all BVIP documentation, system logs, completed survey questionnaires, tapes and transcripts of interviews, field notes, coded data, and internal reports, both online and paper- based. The raw data will then be organized by research question, using multiple sources of evidence from each of the instruments to answer each of the five research questions. The draft will include not only the research findings, but also the literature review which is included in this research proposal. It will be constructed as a narrative, taking each research question in order. We will also generate further recommendations for future investigation. The draft will be read and edited by both researchers, and then submitted to the CEO of RMC Research for review.
After this final refereeing process, it will be revised and submitted to the BVIP project director, who will discuss the findings with the researchers. Her comments will be incorporated, and the final report will be released to the NSF. A summary of the evaluation, with recommendations for project improvements, will also be posted on the BVIP network.
At the close of the evaluation, we plan to present our findings, together with our recommendations, to the Boulder Valley School Board. If we are able to capture any of the classroom interactions on video during our observations, then we will make this a multimedia presentation; else we will use PowerPoint. We also plan to present the same information at national professional conferences such as AERA and AECT. Then, using the interim report, the final report, and any feedback from the presentations, we plan to write a research article and submit it to a refereed journal such as IJET or EJVC.
Boulder Valley Internet Project. (1993). An overview of the Boulder Valley Internet Project. (Available from Libby Black, BVSD, Box 9011, Boulder CO 80301.)
Carlson, R.O. (1970). The adoption of educational innovations. In M.W. Miles, & W.W. Charters, Jr. (Eds.), Learning in social settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Egan, G. (1985). Change agent skills in helping and human service settings. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Farquhar, J.D., & Surry, D.W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31 (1), 19-25.
Gross, N., Giacquinta, J. B., & Bernstein, M. (1970). Failure to implement a major organizational innovation. In M.W. Miles, & W.W. Charters, Jr. (Eds.), Learning in social settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heaviside, S., Malitz, G., & Carpenter, J. (1995, January). Advanced telecommunications in U.S. public schools, K-12. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (Available from Judi Carpenter, 202-219-1333.)
Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and K-12 educators: Findings from a national survey. NY: Center for Technology in Education.
Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lawyer-Brook, D., & Sherry, L. (1996, March). Creating Connections: An Internet training program for rural K-12 teachers. Jacksonville, FL: Paper presented at the National Conference on College Teaching and Learning.
Levin, S. (1995). Teachers using technology: Barriers and breakthroughs. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1 (1), 53-70.
Morison, E. (1984). Gunfire at sea: Conflict over a new technology. In R. Westrum, & K. Samaha (Eds.), Complex organizations: Growth, struggle, and change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peled, Z., Peled, E., & Alexander, G. (1994). An ecological approach for information technology intervention, evaluation, and software adoption policies. In E.L. Baker, & H.F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on Chaos. NY: Harper & Row.
RMC Research Corporation. (1996). Boulder Valley Internet Project - Initiative II Interim Report. Manuscript in preparation.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (Third Edition). NY: The Free Press.
Ruelle, D. (1991). Chance and Chaos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spielberger, C.D, & Starr, L.M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H.F O'Neil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stockdill, S.H., & Morehouse, D.L. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of technology: A checklist based on TDC findings. Educational Technology, 32 (1), 57-8/
Teasley, U.H. (1996, February). Factors affecting teachers' decisions about use and non-use of computers: Administrative actions. Indianapolis: Paper presented at the AECT In-CITE'96 Conference.
Wilson, B.G., McCahan, J., & Sherry, L. (1996, February). Cultural assimilation of the Internet. Indianapolis: Paper presented at the AECT In-CITE'96 Conference.
Wolf, K., & Black, L. (1993). The Boulder Valley Internet Project first annual progress report: 1992-1993. (Available from Libby Black, BVSD, Box 9011, Boulder CO 80301.)
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Note: All Appendices are on the RMC System, in the BVIP database.
Appendix A
Draft Letter of Permission for Case Study
Draft Letter of Permission for Focus Group
Draft Letter of Permission for Curriculum Assessment Work Group
Appendix B.
Classroom Observation Checklist
Appendix C.
Boulder Valley Project Questionnaire: Grades 3-5
Boulder Valley Project Questionnaire: Grades 6-12
Appendix D.
Sample Questions for Focus group
Back to Home Page
Return to REM 7500 Page
Lorraine Sherry