Research Proposal versions:        (87k)  |    Overview Presentation  :  (777k)

I. Introduction and Background

Then, as now, people often overestimate the impact that a new technology will have on education. Nevertheless, few would argue that computers are a passing fad in society at large or in schools in particular. In school year 2004-2005, 48 states included technology standards for students. ( U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) In 2004, Massachusetts public school districts had nearly 97% of their classrooms connected to the Internet (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005). It is evident that technology is being used in schools.

In Massachusetts, the Department of Education (DOE) recommends that districts have three job titles in the area of “Curriculum Integration Staffing.” These positions are (1) District level Technology Director, (2) Instructional Technology Specialist, and (3) Dedicated District level Staff for data management and assessment. (Education Advisory Technology Council, 2003). Although there is overlap among the duties of these three job titles, generally speaking, the director manages the technology program, the instructional technology (IT) specialist trains students and staff to utilize technology and the district staff provide technical support.

Integrating technology into teaching and learning is, arguably, the main task of the IT specialist. As mentioned above, the position of IT specialist falls under the category of “Curriculum Integration Staff” in the Massachusetts School Technology and Readiness Chart. Weston (Mass) Public School District, for example, lists “to facilitate the integration of technology into all curriculum areas” (Weston Public School District, 2005) as the top descriptor for the position of Instructional Technology specialist, while Arlington (Mass) Public School District unequivocally states that “Technology integration is the cornerstone of the district's effort to ensure all students achieve technology literacy” (Arlington Public School District, 2005) . Although IT specialists may perform a variety of duties, integrating technology into teaching and learning is, undoubtedly, one of the most important. This study is concerned with the extent to which Instructional Technology specialists working at the district and building levels are able to carry out the duties assigned to them.

According to the Massachusetts DOE 2004-2005 Local Technology Plan Guide, “Less than one-third of districts have the recommended level of staffing for technology integration support, and less than one-quarter of districts have the recommended level of technical support.” If most schools (more than 75%) do not have the recommended technical support personnel, logic would suggest that students and faculty would look to the next locally available “computer person,” the IT specialist in most cases, to solve their technological problems.

This situation leads to the researcher’s hypothesis that IT specialists spend an inordinate amount of their time doing the work of the often non-existent technical support staff, i.e. troubleshooting computer related issues for students and staff, thereby reducing their time available to help integrate technology into teaching and learning. This situation also suggests the importance and necessity of this study. The purpose of this study is (1) to determine the portion of time IT specialists devote specifically to the integration of technology into teaching and learning, and (2) to gain a clear description of the professional experience and educational background of IT specialists in Massachusetts middle schools.

II. Literature Review

Much of the the research that is relevant to this study is found in current privately-funded and government–sponsored technology reports and guidelines. The research that has most bearing on the purpose of this study has been divided into three categories: Tehnical Support, Technology Integration Support, and Budget Allocation. In addition to Massachusetts, the site of the proposed survey, data from the states of North Carolina and Michigan will also be examined. These states have been chosen to represent different geographical regions of the country.

Technical Support

“Business and industry have recognized the importance of technical support. Currently, industry provides a technical support ratio of one technical support person to 50 computers” ( North Carolina Department of Education, 2002). The national School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart recommends that districts have “the equivalent of one full-time position (which can include contracted services) to support every 200 computers” (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001).

In North Carolina public schools, the recommended ratio of technical support personnel to computers is 1 technician for 400 computers. In 1999, North Carolina public schools employed one technical support person for every 800 computers. By 2001, the ratio had improved to one technician for every 560 computers ( North Carolina Department of Education, n.d). The state’s Annual Media and Technology Report concluded “The result of inadequate support is significant down time, lost productivity, and inefficient use of resources” ( North Carolina Department of Education, 2002).

State guidelines in Massachusetts call for a higher standard than the national STaR Chart’s one technician to 200 computers. The Massachusetts Local Technology Plan benchmark for technical support calls for districts to provide at least one technician to support 100-200 computers (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001). The state average falls short on both measures. The Massachusetts DOE reported the average technician to computer ratio was 1 to 405 computers in 2003. By 2004, the ratio had dropped to 1 to 451 computers (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001). The Technology in Massachusetts Schools 2003-2004 report attributed the decline to districts continuing to “purchase additional computers without providing additional staff or contractors to provide technical support to their users” (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005).

The researcher’s hypothesis that IT specialists spend an inordinate amount of their time doing the work of the often non-existent technical support staff is supported by research from various sources. Michigan’s State Technology Plan reports that “Even when staff resources are present, they may be overwhelmed by immediate tasks and hard pressed to keep up with the introduction of new technology and to assist in its appropriate use” (Michigan Department of Education, 2000).

The first recommendation for how to obtain high quality technical staff in Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools, and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education is for administrators to recognize that technology experts must be able to focus on their roles full time" ( Forum on Education Statistics, 2002).

In the 2002 Michigan Technology Staffing Guidelines, the Department of Education recommended four separate District level job titles and three distinct Building level titles. Note that the number of “Staff” positions is not specified, leaving open the possibility of assigning more than one person to each “staff” position.

Technology Integration Support

The question of integrating technology in the classroom is the dominant issue presently concerning technology in education. In the final analysis, a school cannot benefit from technology if technology is not applied, no matter how efficiently or brilliantly that technology is maintained.
(Beattie, 2000)

The Technology in Massachusetts Schools 2003-2004 report includes three different positions in their statistics regarding “Curriculum Integration Support”: Instructional Technology specialists, Media specialists, and Library teachers . The Massachusetts STaR Chart recommends at least one full-time-equivalent person to support up to 80 teachers (Education Advisory Technology Council, 2003 ). Those recommendations are not being met because “nearly half of the districts either had no support or had a full-time-equivalent person supporting more than 160 teachers” (Education Advisory Technology Council, 2003 ).

It is important to note that these statistics include media specialists and library teachers, people who often have little to do with helping teachers specifically integrate technology into teaching. If the study were to look specifically at IT specialists and leave media specialists and library teachers out of the equation, then the picture would assuredly be even bleaker. The report did note the difficulty in determining the “portion of time devoted specifically to curriculum integration support” due to the multiple responsibilities of those involved in curriculum integration (Education Advisory Technology Council, 2003 ). The main purpose of this study is to do just that; to determine the “portion of time devoted specifically to curriculum integration support” specifically by IT specialists.

Although not identical in job description as Massachusetts ’ Instructional Technology specialist, a very similar role is played by the Technology Resource Teacher ( TRT ) in North Carolina . Two studies were carried out investigating the role and effectiveness of these newly-created (in 1995) TRT positions. These teachers provided other teachers and students with technical and instructional support at the building level (Moallem and Others, 1996). Despite the fact that their job description emphasizes instructional responsibilities over technical and administrative responsibilities,

While the Technology Resource Teachers in the study felt that they devoted much more time to support than to instruction, it is interesting to note that the teachers perceived the TRTs as providing more instructional support than technical support.” (Moallem and Others, 1996) Different perceptions of schools’ “technological reality” are not limited to North Carolina. The findings of Michigan’s State Technology Plan (2000) also highlight the often stark differences between various stakeholders’ perceptions of technology and technology integration. For example, “58% of the superintendents indicated their districts provided a “lot” of [technical] support. By contrast, less than 19% of 140 technology coordinators informally surveyed in 1999 thought their districts provided a lot of support” (Michigan Department of Education, 2000).

Budget Allocation

The 1991-2000 national STaR Report found that U.S. public schools spend, on average, 83% of their technology budget on equipment and only 17% on “professional development” (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001).

Consensus has not been reached on the proper allocation of schools’ technology resources although two well known sources almost mimic one another’s recommendation. The national STaR Chart recommends a 70-30 spending ratio of equipment to training (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001) , and the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" (Public Law 107-110) calls for a 75-25 split between equipment and “training and professional development” (Forum on Education Statistics, 2002) . WestEd, a not-for-profit, educational research and development agency, recommends a different 70%-30% split. Diametrically opposed to the two previous sources, WestEd would see 70% going to support and 30% going to equipment (White, Rinsgstaff, and Kelly, 2002).

WestEd is not alone in calling for schools to devote more resources for support and training than for hardware and software. Earle (2002) argues that “the educational technology that can make the biggest difference to schools and students is not the hardware, but the process of designing effective instruction which incorporates computer technology and other media appropriately.” And in his report, The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools, Thomas C. Reeves states that “Huge investments in time and support for teachers will be especially critical if the adoption of constructivist pedagogies accompany the infusion of media and technology” (The Bertelsmann Foundation, 1998).

III. Method

The purpose of this study is (1) to determine the portion of time IT specialists devote specifically to the integration of technology into teaching and learning, and (2) to gain a clear description of the professional experience and educational background of IT specialists in Massachusetts middle schools.

Instrumentation


The instrument used for this quantitative study is a survey developed by the researcher. (See Survey, Appendix A) The survey is comprised of 30 items divided into three sections: “Background,” “Current Job Experience,” and “Statements about My Job.” Each section has 10 items.

The themes addressed in the Section One, “Background,” include gender, level of education, licensure status, professional association affiliation, technological experience, and previous job titles. The purpose for collecting the data from this section is to obtain an accurate picture of “who they are,” as stated in the title of this study.

The themes addressed in Section Two, “Current Job Experience,” include length of time in current position, job duties performed, and a ranking of various job duties based on the amount of time spent performing each duty. The purpose of collecting this data is to obtain an accurate picture of “what they do,” as stated in the title of this study. These job duties include the following:

• Working with individual teachers to facilitate the integration of technology into teaching and learning;
• Training staff and students to use software;
• Furthering the IT specialist’s own professional development goals;
• Troubleshooting for individual staff and students;
• Troubleshooting the network;
• Maintaining school or department Web site;
• Administrative duties (such as purchasing technology and planning); and
• Managing a computer lab(s).

Section Three will complement the responses given in Section Two. Section Three, “Statements about My Job,” is comprised of 10 statements regarding job duties. An example of a statement in this section is “I spend most of my workday training students and staff how to use software and/or hardware.” Participants will choose their responses based on the following 5 point Likert scale: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Neither Agree nor Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree.”

Procedure and Participants


In April, 200-, the survey be field-tested on a group of 10 Massachusetts middle school IT specialists from Newton Public School District and several other surrounding communities. After analyzing the results of the field test, the survey will be edited, if necessary.

The survey will then be distributed, via US and electronic mail, to 60 public middle schools in Massachusetts chosen at random. Each survey will be sent directly to the school’s IT specialist if his/her name and address can be ascertained. Otherwise, it will be sent to the school’s principal who will be asked to pass it along to the IT specialist. The surveys, along with a cover letter, will be delivered no later than January 10, 200-. The cover letter describes the survey and its purpose, ensures participant confidentiality, and informs participants of the January 31 st deadline. (See Cover Letter, Appendix B)

Data Collection

 Based on the data analysis performed on the data collected form the surveys, the researcher’s hypothesis will be evaluated and further interpretations will be made. The hypothesis states that IT specialists spend an inordinate amount of their time troubleshooting for students and staff, thereby reducing their time available to help integrate technology into teaching and learning. The results of this study would be of particular interest to a variety of people:

• State Departments of Education,
• District level administration,
• Building level administration,
• Current and prospective school-related technology personnel, and possibly
• Business and industry Information Technology personnel.
  

If the study’s hypthesis is proven correct, it is hoped that administration at both the District and the Building levels would take the measures necessary to ensure that progress is being made toward State Technological Staffing guidelines.

Discussion

The hypothesis states that IT specialists spend an inordinate amount of their time troubleshooting for students and staff, thereby reducing their time available to help integrate technology into teaching and learning. The results of this study would be of particular interest to a variety of people:

• State Departments of Education,
• District level administration,
• Building level administration,
• Current and prospective school-related technology personnel, and possibly
• Business and industry Information Technology personnel.

If the study’s hypthesis is proven correct, it is hoped that administration at both the District and the Building levels would take the measures necessary to ensure that progress is made toward implementing technology staffing guidelines.In this way, Instructional Technology specialists would be available to help classroom teachers realize technology’s role in increasing student learning.

Appendices:
Appendix A – Survey
Appendix B – Cover letter

References

Anderson, L. (1996). Technology planning at the state, district, and local levels. ERIC Digest. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED393448)

Bailey, G., & Pownell, D. (1998, November). Technology staff development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs [Electronic version]. Learning and Leading With Technology , 26, 3, 47-51.

Beattie, R.M. (2000, Sept.). The Truth about Tech Support. Electronic School . Retrieved July 24, 2005, from http://www.electronic-school.com/2000/09/0900f3.html

The Bertelsmann Foundation. (1998).The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools. Reeves, T.C. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.athensacademy.org/instruct/media_tech/reeves0.html

Brand, G. A., (1997, winter) What Research Says: Training Teachers for Using Technology [Electronic version]. Journal of Staff Development, 19, (1). Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brand191.cfm

Byrom, E. (1998). Factors that affect the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR- TEC intensive site schools. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.serve.org/seir-tec/publications/lessons.html

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001, June). National School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Report, Year Four. Retrieved July 19, 2005, from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.html

Earle, S. R., (Ed.). (2002). The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education: Promises and Challenges [Electronic version]. Educational Technology Magazine, 42, 1, 5-13. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/earle.pdf

Education Advisory Technology Council of the Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003) Massachusetts School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/edtech/star.html

Forum on Education Statistics. (2002). Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools, and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education. (NCES No. 2003313) Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/index.asp

Gahala, J. (n.d.) Critical Issue: Promoting Technology Use in Schools. Pathways to School Improvement. Retrieved July 24, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/ te200.htm

Jin, S., & Abate, R. J. (1993). Teachers and Technological Tools in the Middle School. Paper presented at 1993 Society for Information Technology Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX, 2-7. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED432285)

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2005). Technology in Massachusetts Schools. 2003-2004. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/etreport/2004.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Local Technology Plan Guidelines School Year 2004-2005 through 2006-2007. Retrieved July17, 2005, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/tplanguide04_07.html

Michigan Department of Education. (2000). Michigan’s State Technology Plan 1998 – Update 2000. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://ww.michigan.gov/documents/miplan2000_40662_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Education. (2002). Michigan Technology Staffing Guidelines. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://techguide.merit.edu/about.html

Moallem, M., & Others. (1996). Technology Resource Teachers: Is This a New Role for Instructional Technologists? Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Indianapolis, IN, 517-532. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED397823)

Moallem, M. & Micallef, S. (1997) Instructional Technologists at Public Schools: A Study of the Role and Effectiveness of Technology Resource Teachers. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Albuquerque, NM. 233-252. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED409856)

North Carolina Department of Education. (2002). The North Carolina Educational Technology Plan 2001-2005, 2002-2003 Revision. Retrieved July 16, 2005 , from http://tps.dpi.state.nc.us/Tech2000rev/techplan.html

Reiser, R. A & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2002). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Shaw, T. (2001, July 1). How to set realistic tech-support staffing goals. eSchool News. Retrieved July 19, 2005, from http://www.eschoolnews.org/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=2108

Stiegemeier, L. (1995). Summary of Alaska Instructional Technology Survey. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED392397)

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Educational Technology Fact Sheet. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/facts.html

Weston ( Massachusetts) Public School District. Retrieved July 23, 2005, from http://www.westonschools.org/admin/it/its.html

White, N., Rinsgstaff, C., and Kelly, L. (2002). Getting the Most from Technology in Schools. WestEd Organization. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/kn-02-01.pdf