Instructional technology applications add an important curriculum component and contribute to increased student achievement. Soloway (1998) emphasizes the potential that instructional software has for advancing student achievement: “If technology is really going to impact education, software will be the key component. Without gasoline, the fanciest car takes you nowhere . . . Today’s computers equipped with the right software could reach out to all children and genuinely afford them the opportunities to engage deeply and substantively in ideas and collaboration” (p. 11).
When considering new instructional technology applications, technology leaders are usually interested in technical specifications and technical integration issues. For instance, they wonder how the new products will integrate with their current network, firewall, operating systems, hardware, and software. While these questions are important, a technology coordinator’s influence can be expanded to secure effective purchasing and implementation of technology-based instructional products. This Technology Coordinator’s Handbook chapter describes best practice strategies for purchasing and implementing technology-based instructional products. It also explains the technology coordinator’s role in that practice.
Effective purchasing starts with an adequate review process. A small and diverse review team of six to eight educators must be convened. Teachers (including at least one special education teacher) whose students will use the application should hold a majority of the seats on the review team, but the team must be led by a curriculum leader or content specialist. Technology coordinators should lobby for a place on the review team. The technical specifications must be considered during the evaluation process. However, technology should never lead an adoption of instructional materials.
A rubric for evaluation is established and agreed upon by the review team. MAR*TEC recommends the following categories when considering instructional technology applications: 1) compatibility with local and state curriculum standards, 2) fit of the product’s teaching and learning styles with the students who will use it, 3) proven efficacy of the product, 4) accessibility of the product for students with disabilities, 5) technical and infrastructure requirements, and 6) support and services needed to maintain the product.
MAR*TEC further recommends that the review team should convene a norming session to define the criteria of the rubric. For instance, the team could agree to review 20 different products, three of which the entire team will explore together. The review team is composed of diverse members, teachers with a range of teaching expertise and experience, content specialists and technology specialists. A group discussion will allow each person’s perspective to become more fully realized. Spillane, Resier, and Reimer (2002) point out the following: “Social interactions can aid sense-making not only because individuals learn from one another but also because group interactions bring insights and perspective to the surface that otherwise might not be made visible to the group” (p. 406). MAR*TEC staff witnessed the benefits of a norming session. During a review team meeting in a Maryland school district, most of the team felt that a specific product failed to meet one of their requirements. One teacher insisted that it did. During the discussion, the “hold-out” explained that he felt that the product was designed to be used by the entire class—not individual students—and therefore, his position was justified. Without a group discussion, this team would not have employed consistent evaluations of the product. After the norming session, the team can then individually consider instructional pieces but should correlate their data into a collective analysis.
Proven efficacy of the product is only one of the criterion that warrants consideration. However, this criterion deserves further discussion because of the proliferation of unsupported vendor claims. Jack Mostow (personal communication) maintains, “Reviews of educational software unfortunately tend to lack rigorous supporting effort…The proof of the pudding is how much kids gain when they use it in practice, compared to realistic alternative treatments such as classroom instruction.” Speaking specifically of reading technology applications Schacter states, “Research conducted on K-3 reading technologies has–for the most part–been poorly conceived, implemented and conducted…Only a fraction of software companies–11 to our knowledge–have tested their software’s effectiveness against other methods” (p.19). If educators understand the components of rigorous testing, they can use their purchasing power to demand substantiated efficacy.
After selecting the technology applications, an installation and deployment timeline should be developed. This timeline is based on the school calendar, teacher needs, technical requirements and upgrades, and available personnel. The timeline must allow adequate time for the installation and testing of the software before deployment. If the technology application will be used by a large group of students, MAR*TEC recommends deploying it first with a test group. The test group could consist of one or two classrooms taught by a member of the review team. This small deployment allows the technology coordinator to troubleshoot technical issues. Furthermore, it allows the teacher to observe her students using the software. She can record her students’ successes and failures. She will share these observations with the other teachers in her school or district during the professional training.
Successful implementation of the technology application requires buy-in from the key players (the teachers). After the software is successfully deployed with the test group (or simultaneously if necessary), all the teachers expected to use the application should receive professional training. This training should include the content specialist and technology coordinator. The content specialist will help the teachers make connections between the technology-delivered curriculum and the student achievement expectations. The technology coordinator will share troubleshooting tips and computer strategies. If the teachers understand the curriculum connections and are comfortable that the technology will work, students will maximize the benefits of the technology application.
Technology applications are expensive. For instance, Table 1 (Schater, 1999) shows costs for early reading software:
Table 1
Cost of Early Reading Software
Product |
Company |
Cost |
FastForward |
Scientific Learning |
$765/student |
Daisy Quest (preK–K) |
Great Wave |
$30/computer |
Little Planet Literacy K–1 |
Little Planet |
$32,000/building or $435/computer |
Wiggle Works (K–2) |
Scholastic |
$5000/classroom |
Writing to Read |
IBM |
$5644/building plus $110/student |
Waterford Early Reading |
Waterford Institute |
$19,000/classroom |
Breakthrough to Literacy |
Wright Group |
$12,500/classroom |
Accelerated Reader |
Renaissance Learning |
$3457 for 20 students and 1000 quizzes |
Academy of Reading (3–8) |
Auto Skill |
$9000/site license $1000/day professional development |
Substantial financial investment calls for strategic selection and implementation. The practices and strategies outlined in this chapter of the Technology Coordinator’s Handbook will allow educators to maximize the return on their instructional application investment.
References
Schacter, J. (1999, October 25). Reading programs that work: A review of programs from pre-kindergarten to 4 th grade. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME279.pdf
Spillane, Resier, Reimer (2002) Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/SpillaneCogn.pdf
Soloway, E. (1998). No one is making money in educational software. Communication of the ACM, 41(2), pg. 11–15.
