Findings from the study provide direction for the refinement of the technology immersion model as well as information for other districts and schools planning a technology immersion project. Recommendations are organized around leadership and planning, technical support, professional development, classroom immersion, and sustainability and expansion.
Leadership and Planning
Involve district and campus leaders, teachers, and parents in the decision to become a technology immersion campus. The reliance on a competitive grant application process for selecting Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) campuses limited stakeholder involvement in decisions to become immersion campuses. Due to a restricted timeframe, districts and schools had limited opportunities for broad-based participation in planning and grant development. Consequently, about a third of middle school principals were not involved in the decision to become an immersion campus, and very few teachers contributed to the decision. Many teachers first learned about the immersion project when they returned from summer break. The brief planning period contributed to subsequent challenges, including insufficient understanding of the immersion concept and lower levels of teacher buy-in for immersion. Gaining widespread teacher commitment remained a central challenge of implementing technology immersion.
Ideally, decision making should involve the entire campus staff in building a clear understanding of technology immersion and how immersion goals for the school, classroom environments, and student-centered learning advanced campus goals for student learning and achievement. Although broad-based involvement of stakeholder groups may not ensure a smooth transition to an immersion campus, it could diminish some obstacles. Many teachers at schools in fall 2004 were unsure how technology immersion would work in their classrooms, and a substantial proportion of these teachers remained unclear about the immersion concept at the end of the second year.
Build strong leadership for immersion. Although leadership was not included as part of the technology immersion packages, district and campus administrators played an important role in implementation. Leadership stability at both the district and campus level was important. While some administrators were intimately familiar with and involved in the project, some districts and schools had high administrative turnover. Some principals and superintendents who had not been involved in developing and implementing the technology immersion model failed to provide the kind of leadership needed for continued progress. At the district level, some administrators had few campus interactions, while others were substantially involved in professional development, campus visits, and ongoing communication with campus leaders. Successful practices emerging from qualitative comments suggested that leadership was more effective if administrators established a clear direction for technology immersion and helped to build the capacities of their staff.
Allow extended time to plan for immersion. Comprehensive planning is considered an essential first step in creating an immersion school, and some believe this may take a year or more (Zucker, 2005). Unfortunately, the timing of the TIP grants (awards in May or July and start-up in August) left little planning time prior to implementation. District representatives, understandably, reported problems with the timing of grant notification and implementation. In particular, teachers could not prepare or receive training over the summer. This was especially important, because many teachers at immersion campuses had limited technology proficiency and little experience with educational technology. Scheduling time for professional development remained a challenge throughout the first year. It is possible that additional pre-implementation planning time might have alleviated some of the first-year problems districts and campuses faced.
Establish supportive and dependable relationships with vendor partners. Because of the important role that vendors played in the delivery of hardware, software, and professional development, it was critically important to establish a close relationship with vendors early in the planning phase. Effective vendor relationships appeared to advance campuses efforts with technology immersion, whereas difficulties in communicating with vendor partners undermined the potential for accessing needed technical and other support services.
Devise a plan for dealing with complex logistical arrangements. Many districts and campuses were unprepared to deal with the myriad logistical issues that surfaced as an early part of immersion. The process of laptop acquisition, setup, and program installation was challenging. Common logistical problems included distribution and collection of laptops, laptop storage, charging batteries, daily maintenance processes, and hardware and software issues. For some districts, the size of the project (e.g., a campus with 1,400 students) created additional logistical challenges. Generally, district representatives reported substantial improvements in the second year due to the experience they gained in distributing and caring for laptops in the first year.
Ensure laptop and Internet security. One of the most prevalent challenges related to security issues. These included the security of the laptops (damage and theft) as well as access to inappropriate websites and student misuse. Districts and middle schools used a variety of approaches to prevent loss of and damage to laptops, such as using local funds to pay for insurance, purchasing geographic tracing software, and requiring parents to pay insurance fees. Although districts typically installed Internet filtering systems to block student access to inappropriate websites, Internet security remained a challenge during the first and second years. In some instances, there were challenges because the filtering software did not work properly (e.g., blocked educationally appropriate sites). Additionally, some students were able to access inappropriate sites when they used their laptops outside of the school. In addition to Internet security, campuses dealt with issues such as students’ inappropriate access to email and instant messaging. Monitoring students’ laptop activities was another challenge. Although teachers gradually became more adept at classroom management, monitoring students’ laptop use remained a concern in the second year.
Establish well-defined and understood policies and practices relative to student responsibility and appropriate use, and parent oversight. The provision of individual laptops for middle school students created a school culture that demanded greater student maturity and self-responsibility than previously had been required. Students had to learn to care for valuable equipment, use laptops appropriately at school and at home, and make appropriate behavioral decisions. Although many administrators and teachers were pleasantly surprised by the responsibility students demonstrated, laptop misuse was a problem for some students. Schools had to revise policies to more clearly articulate behavioral expectations for both students and parents. Moreover, after updating policies, many principals believed that it was critically important to communicate laptop and Internet access responsibilities and expectations to parents through presentations, training sessions, and letters. Training for students on appropriate laptop and Internet use, prior to receiving the laptops each year, was essential.
Secure parent support for immersion. Securing parent support for immersion was an issue at some schools. Administrators at a few schools said a small number of parents refused to give permission for their children to have laptops, with reasons for denial centering on concerns about financial responsibility and Internet safety. At two higher implementing campuses, however, principals assuaged parental fears by telephoning or meeting with parents to discuss their concerns, offering parent training on laptop monitoring strategies, and helping parents to understand the contribution of laptops to students’ development as learners and their educational opportunities.
Budget for adequate funds to accommodate unanticipated costs. Several districts struggled with insufficient funds to cover implementation costs. Administrators needed additional money to cover spare computers, computers for new students, insurance, supplies, additional equipment (such as LCD projects and printers), and funds to hire dedicated campus staff.
Technical Support
Build a healthy infrastructure for wireless technology prior to immersion. An inadequate school infrastructure for technology plagued some districts and campuses. Many district and campus leaders said antiquated middle schools did not have the necessary technical capacity to support immersion. Leaders described problems with electrical capacity, struggles to install a wireless network with an adequate number of access points, and network limitations, including poor Internet connections, which frustrated their efforts at immersion. Some leaders thought the second-year went more smoothly because school infrastructures had been stabilized and Internet bandwidths increased.
Hire campus-based technical and pedagogical support for immersion. A shortage of well-trained campus technical staff was an obstacle to technology immersion in the first year. Technology coordinators, especially at small campuses, said the increased demands of immersion over-extended technical staff members who were already spread thin. Moreover, many campus coordinators did not have the requisite backgrounds to provide broad-based technical support. And, although many technology coordinators were expected to spend time supporting teachers’ classroom efforts, the technical demands of immersion left little time for classroom support.
Even though schools expanded staffing for technical and pedagogical support in the second year, additional help was needed to address laptop repairs, Internet safety issues, and in-classroom support for teachers. Campus technology coordinators typically acted as both technical and pedagogical support providers, and several had other assignments that diffused their efforts. As campus technology infrastructure at many schools (wiring, Internet connectivity) stabilized in the second year, laptop maintenance demands and Internet safety monitoring responsibilities increased. Time devoted to technical issues left little time for coordinators to assist classroom teachers with curricular integration.
Professional Development
Provide a well-defined and consistent model for professional development. One goal of the Request for Qualifications for technology immersion packages was the promotion of similar professional development models across campuses. However, the nature of professional development varied by vendor providers (Apple, Dell/Pearson, and Region 1 ESC) as well as by each campus’s support for the vendor’s efforts. All told, the lack of a consistent model for professional development across vendors and campuses meant that teachers received varying degrees of training depending on their vendor, and in some cases, depending upon the individual assigned as the primary trainer for their campus. Teachers in some schools reported receiving extensive training in package tools and methods for integrating laptops into instruction, while other teachers said they received cursory training in package resources and little or no training in classroom integration. There also were wide variations in the level of classroom-based mentoring or coaching. Some teachers said trainers observed them teach and provided constructive feedback or modeled lessons using technology, whereas others said classroom support was limited to brief visits in which trainers asked teachers about the problems they encountered or suggested online resources specific to the teacher’s subject area. Many teachers did not receive any in-class support, although opportunities were available upon request.
Professional development received by many teachers in the second year was insufficient to advance classroom immersion. Core-subject teachers in focus groups said that the bulk of professional development took place during the first year. As a result, new teachers, in particular, had insufficient training opportunities. Professional development also shifted in the second year from whole-group sessions to more individualized training, and from vendor-provided training to increased reliance on multiple professional development providers (vendors, local staff, education service center staff, conferences). Consequently, the quality of professional development varied widely across schools.
Address both knowledge of immersion resources and classroom integration. According to many teachers, professional development activities focused on the use of package tools and the identification of online resources with little attention to planning integrated lessons and techniques for integrating laptops into instruction. Not surprisingly, in the first year, most teachers described nominal changes in their classroom practice as a result of professional development. Teachers said they were successfully integrating their lessons because they used PowerPoint and LCD projectors to present their lessons, directed students to online resources, and identified games that aligned with their course content. As teachers became more comfortable with technology in the second year, many drew selectively from a wider range of technology resources to enhance their teaching and students’ learning experiences. However, teachers continued to need help to fully understand the meaning of classroom immersion.
Provide distributed training with time for classroom implementation. Many teachers said that they had difficulty retaining training content because large amounts of material were presented at one sitting, training content was too advanced, the pace of training was too rushed, or because they had little opportunity to use what they had learned in a timely fashion. Teachers suggested that shorter trainings focused on a single skill or program that had immediate applications to classroom instruction would be more useful than longer trainings covering a variety of applications. Teachers said that trainers needed to be cognizant of varying skill levels among teachers and to group teachers according to ability.
Provide teachers with time and support for change. Teachers said that the greatest benefit of first-year professional development was increased comfort using computers in the classroom and that they looked forward to greater gains in the subsequent school year. However, many teachers identified challenges in the second year that often outweighed perceived benefits. Core-subject teachers who participated in focus groups appreciated that student laptops eliminated the need to schedule time in the library or in a computer lab, allowed more varied lesson plans and individualized learning, and provided opportunities for in-depth research. On the other hand, teachers were concerned that time absorbed by laptops diminished curricular coverage and TAKS preparation. Teachers also had difficulty finding time to prepare laptop-related lessons, making arrangements for students without laptops, handling technical problems, and monitoring students’ appropriate laptop use. Certainly, many teachers needed additional time and guidance to create technology immersed classrooms.
Classroom Immersion
Recognize that teachers in the initial stages of immersion will generally use laptops and digital resources to enhance their existing instructional practices. Baseline data for fall of the first year showed that many teachers at immersion campuses were using Microsoft Office (or AppleWorks) products to report grades and attendance, and in some cases, to submit lesson plans. Many teachers also used their classroom computers to access the Internet for lessons, and they used a variety of educational software programs (e.g., Accelerated Reader), either in their classrooms or computer labs, to support students’ basic skills in core-content areas. Classroom use trends for spring showed that one-to-one student access to laptops increased the frequency of students’ classroom technology use, but the kinds of technology use remained much the same. Immersion teachers most frequently had students search the Internet for information on a particular topic as part of class work, and they often had students use the laptops’ word processors for reports, papers, journals, and other written products. The use of presentation software (PowerPoint or Keynote) and various kinds of educational programs was also prevalent.
Similarly, in the second year, teachers typically adapted traditional practices to include technology resources. English language arts and reading (ELA) teachers had students use laptops to research information about stories read, keep journals, write original stories, and make presentations. Social studies teachers at all schools believed laptops enhanced their ability to conduct research with their students, and laptops permitted student access to more and better information through resources such as virtual tours or field trips, online newspapers, video clips, and electronic textbooks. Science teachers at many schools had students use laptops to research a wide range of topics, present their research, and take notes. Mathematics teachers at all schools found it difficult to integrate laptops in their classes, primarily because they had too few math-related resources and believed pencil-and-paper activities were best for math. Teachers at many schools, however, used laptops for math extension (online activities and games) and diagnostic assessment.
Assess teachers’ existing technology knowledge and skills and plan accordingly. Classroom immersion was a substantial challenge for teachers who began with limited technology knowledge and skills. School principals, technology coordinators, and teachers themselves worried about immersion teachers’ low levels of technology proficiency in fall. Many recognized that professional development and ongoing support would be essential to advance one-to-one laptop access. At the onset, many teachers also were uncertain about the immersion concept and concerned about the increased work load. Given teachers’ initial readiness for immersion, it was not surprising that the level of classroom implementation has varied widely. While nearly all teachers reported that they integrated laptops into their lessons at least some of the time, students reported vast teacher-to-teacher differences. Students said some teachers “hardly ever” used laptops whereas other teachers used laptops “a lot” or “every day.” Consequently, students’ classroom experiences with technology depended upon their assigned teachers.
Students believed teachers’ tendencies to use laptops reflected the relevance of laptops to the subject area and teachers’ personal traits. Some students believed laptops were unsuitable for math because problems had to be worked out on paper and inappropriate for writing because the TAKS test requires pencil-and-paper compositions. Conversely, students believed ample learning resources and websites made laptops ideally suited for social studies and science. Students also linked teacher characteristics to laptop use, indicating that teachers who are strict, outdated, lack technology proficiency, do not find laptops useful for schoolwork, or fear that students will behave irresponsibly seldom or never used laptops. In contrast, students believed teachers who know how to use technology and think laptops provide a different way of learning used them more often.
Consider a gradual approach to the introduction of instructional and assessment resources. Teachers and students received a wealth of instructional and learning tools as part of the TIP packages. Unfortunately, teachers reported limited use of the instructional resources, except for the productivity tools with which they were already familiar (e.g, Word, PowerPoint, Keynote). Similarly, few teachers used the online assessments. Teachers cited numerous barriers to resource use, including insufficient training, technical glitches, limited time, opinions of poor product quality, and a perceived lack of alignment with subject-area standards and TAKS objectives. Because licenses for instructional and assessment resources are quite expensive, greater efficiency may be gained by seeking school and teacher input on the kinds of resources that best support the core-content areas, gradually introducing those resources, and providing training that directly supports curricular integration.
Sustainability and Expansion
Plan for continuation as part of the decision to become a technology immersion district or campus. By the end of the first and second years, district and campus leaders realized that they faced financial problems implementing technology immersion beyond the grant-funded period. District representatives expressed concerns about the need to purchase new laptops because of wear, damage, or increased student enrollment. Their ability to continue implementation, given local budget limitations, depended upon funding for technology from state or federal sources. Many principals said that technology immersion would remain important on their campuses after the TIP grant ends. Some planned to identify other sources of revenue for supporting immersion.
Consider how immersion may need to be expanded to other schools and students. Immersing some but not all campuses in a district raised new issues about equitable technology access. About half of district representatives in the first year wanted to expand TIP to serve other schools and students. One of the major concerns, which district personnel described, was how to deal with the fact that middle-school students would lose their laptops after eighth grade as they moved to high school. Specifically, many were concerned about limited availability of technology at the high schools. Many district representatives cited financial limitations as the major barrier to expanding immersion to other students, grade levels, or schools. One district, however, used local funds to expand the program to the high school level.
