In the study of the Technology Immersion model, high-need middle schools were “immersed” in technology by providing laptops for each teacher and student, instructional and learning resources, professional development, and technical and pedagogical support. This article reports third-year findings for the teacher component of the theory-driven evaluation. Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze longitudinal survey data, we found that Technology Immersion has a statistically significant effect on teachers' growth rate for technology knowledge and skills, ideological affiliations with technology integration and learner-centered instruction, and the frequency of class activities involving technology. Treatment teachers' technical proficiency and their school's innovative culture, ongoing professional development, and parent/community support predicted teachers' higher classroom immersion. The authors discuss the viability of the Technology Immersion model and implications for technology integration in classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerE. L.GearhartM., & HermanJ. L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple classrooms of tomorrow. In BakerE. & O'NeilH.Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BakiaM.YangE., & MitchellK. (2008). National educational technology trends study local-level data summary.Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.
3.
BauerJ., & KentonJ. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
4.
BeckerH. J. (2001a). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
5.
BeckerH. J. (2001b). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/
BirmanB. F.DesimoneL.PorterA. C., & GaretM. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
8.
BormanG. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty schools: Outcomes and implications. In ParkerL. (Ed.), Review of research in education, 29, 1–28. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L., & CockingR. R. (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century: Assessment, alignment, accountability, access, analysis.Washington, DC.
12.
ChapmanJ. (1996). A new agenda for a new society. In LeithwoodK.ChapmanJ.CorsonD.HallingerP. & HartA. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 27–56). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
13.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
CubanL.KirkpatrickH., & PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
15.
DavisM. R. (2009a). Breaking away from tradition. Education Week, 28(26), 8–9.
DusickD. (1998–1999). What social cognitive factors influence faculty member's choice to use computers for teaching. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 123–137.
21.
DwyerD. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4–10.
22.
Education Week. (2007, March 29). Technology counts 2007: A digital decade. Education Week, 26(30). A Special State-Focused Supplement. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from www.edweek.org/rc
23.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.Levittown, PA: Falmer Press.
24.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
25.
FullanM., & HargreavesA. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective?American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
27.
GoertzM.FlodenR., & O'DayJ. (1996). Studies of education reform.Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
28.
GoldsworthyR. (2000). Collaborative classrooms. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(4), 6–9.
29.
HedekerD. (2004). An introduction to growth modeling. In KaplanD. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
30.
HightowerA. M. (2009). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week, 28(26), 30–31.
31.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators.Washington, DC: Author.
33.
JohnstonM., & CooleyN. (2001). Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
34.
KnezekG.ChristensenR.MiyashitaK., & RoppM. (2000). Instruments for assessing educator progress in technology integration.Denton, TX: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL).
Maine Educational Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives, mid-year evaluation report.Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine.
37.
Maine Educational Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). (2004). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives, mid-year evaluation report.Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine.
38.
MannD.ShakeshaftC.BeckerJ., & KottkampR. (1999). West Virginia Story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program.Beverly Hills, CA: Milken Family Foundation; Charleston: West Virginia State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED429575)
39.
Metiri Group. (2003). Observation tools for school observers.Culver City, CA: Author.
40.
MoerschC. (2001). Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) Questionnaire.Carlsbad, CA: National Business Education Alliance.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st Century: A report on teachers' use of technology.Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
42.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2008). Digest of education statistics: 2008.Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/index.asp
NewmannF.BrykA., & NagoakaJ. (2001). Authentic and intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence?Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
46.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills—Literacy in the digital age.Naperville, IL: Author.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR., & GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
49.
PitlerH. (2005). McREL technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program: Final report. (Report No. 2005–09). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486685)
50.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
RingstaffC., & KelleyL. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment.WestEd. Retrieved from www.wested.org/cs/wes/view/rs/619
52.
Rockman (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop program.San Francisco, CA: Author.
53.
RonnkvistA.DexterS., & AndersonR. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth and impact in America's schools. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings.html
54.
RussellM.BebellD.CowanJ., & CorbelliM. (2002). An AlphaSmart for each student: Does teaching and learning change with full access to word processors?Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
55.
RussellM.O'BrienE.BebellD., & O'DwyerL. (2003). Students' beliefs, access, and use of computers in school and at home.Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.
56.
SandholtzJ.RingstaffC., & DwyerD. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms.New York: Teachers College Press.
57.
SengeP. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations.New York: Doubleday.
58.
ShapleyK. S.BennerA. D.HeikesE. J., & PieperA. M. (2002). Technology Integration in Education (TIE) initiative: Statewide survey report, executive summary.Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
59.
ShapleyK.SheehanD.SturgesK.Caranikas-WalkerF.HuntsbergerB., & MaloneyC. (2006). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: An analysis of the baseline conditions and first-year implementation of Technology Immersion in middle schools.Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
60.
ShapleyK.SheehanD.MaloneyC., & Caranikas-WalkerF. (2008a). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Outcomes for the third year (2007–08).Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
61.
ShapleyK.MaloneyC.Caranikas-WalkerF., & SheehanD. (2008b). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Third-year (2007–08) traits of higher Technology Immersion schools and teachers.Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
62.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
63.
SmerdonB.CronenS.LanahanL.AndersonJ.IannottiN., & AngelesJ. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES 2000–102). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
StraubE. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
66.
SullaN. (1999, February). Technology: To use or infuse.The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://technologysource.org/article/technology/
67.
Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2006). Long-range plan for technology, 2006–2020: A report to the 80th Texas Legislature from the Texas Education Agency.Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
TrotterA. (2007). Getting up to speed. Education Week, 26(30), 10–12.
70.
WindschitlM., & SahlK. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
71.
ZhaoY., & FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.
