24.1 Introduction

Successful technology implementation and integration necessitates an instrumentalist perspective (Surry and Land 2000). Implementing technology that ultimately impacts students’ outcomes requires formal planning processes that address more than the obvious factors, such as hardware, software, and technical support. Technology planning must also address organizational, contextual, and personal factors related to technology implementation and integration.

Despite a great deal of access to technology resources, utilization of technologies for learning is often slow, use remains shallow and low-level, and teachers’ attitudes about using technology are not changing (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck 2001; Ertmer 1999). While access to technology is a necessary condition, it remains insufficient for successful implementation. Additional barriers such as alignment to the school’s mission and curriculum (Hayes 2007; Kopcha 2010), time to develop a technology-based curriculum (Bauer and Kenton 2005; Feist 2003), teachers' perceptions about the role of technology in instruction (Ertmer 1999), teachers' knowledge and skills related to technology integration and quality professional development (PD;) (Koehler and Mishra 2005), and schools’ culture regarding technology-based learning and how a school supports technology in the classroom (Zhao et al. 2002) also impact the success of implementation. Simply adopting technology and hoping for the best is not enough; impacting student learning outcomes with technology requires active planning that directly addresses these barriers.

This chapter provides a broad overview perspective of planning for technology in K-12 settings. The focus is on describing the components of technology planning that are required for diffusing technology into a school, rather than describing the diffusion of a particular form of technology. The focus is on K-12, but the information can be applied to higher education and business settings facing similar barriers to technology integration. Practitioners will find the information helpful in developing technology plans for their schools. Researchers, particularly those engaged in design-based research, will find the information useful when considering contextual factors that influence implementation.

The chapter utilizes two technology implementation theories as the focus of planning. Although these two theories do not represent the only theoretical models for technology implementation, I selected them because of their broad perspective in addressing key organizational and human factors related to implementation planning. The chapter then examines essential components that must be addressed in school technology plans, including detailed examination of PD and evaluation components. Finally, it discusses the role research can play in furthering our knowledge related to technology implementation and planning.

24.2 Technology Implementation Theories

The integration of technology into the classroom results from the diffusion of technology in the organization. The diffusion of technology into an organization occurs through three separate processes: adoption, implementation, and integration. Adoption occurs when members in the organization acknowledge, both cognitively and affectively, that a form of technology would benefit the organization in meeting its goals (Rogers 1995). Implementation consists of the decisions and actions taken to directly affect organizational, human, and cultural barriers in order to facilitate the dispersion of the technology throughout the organization (Ely 1990, 1999; Rogers 1995). Integration occurs when individual members take action and utilize the technology in appropriate ways to meet organizational objectives. Figure 24.1 provides an example of how these three processes occur in a school setting.

Although separate, the processes of adoption, implementation, and integration influence one another. Failure to resolve cognitive and affective issues or poorly aligning a technology to meet organizational goals during the adoption phase influences an organization’s ability to act in ways that promotes successful implementation. If implementation decisions and actions fail to address key issues related to the dissemination of technology, individuals in the organization will fail to fully integrate technology into their practice. Burkman (1987) suggests the failure of integration of innovations results from poor implementation. Berman (1981) states both the qualitative and quantitative research on technology integration indicates that implementation influences the success of technology as much, if not more than, the technology itself. Both Burkman and Berman emphasize the crucial role of implementation. Given the importance of implementation for the success of technology, schools must systematically plan their technology implementation processes.

Multiple models and theories exist related to education change, with some scholars describing approaches specific to the implementation of technology. Two approaches, conditions that facilitate implementation (Ely 1990, 1999) and the RIPPLES model (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005), address many of the variables and factors that influence successful technology implementation by outlining areas that organizations must address when planning for technology. Research using these models supports their relationship to technology implementation (Bauder 1993; Ensminger et al. 2004; Ensminger and Surry 2008; Ravitz 1999; Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). I chose to present these two models over others because the model components have direct connection to elements related to technology planning.

24.3 Conditions that Facilitate Implementation

Ely (1990, 1999) identified eight environmental and human conditions that facilitate the implementation of technology innovations. Although interrelated, each is significant and should be addressed separately when developing technology plans. The following provides a general description of each condition and an example related to technology implementation in K-12 settings.

Dissatisfaction with the status quo refers to the level of emotional discomfort present among individuals in the organization related to the current practices being used to reach the organization’s goals (Ely 1990, 1999). When individuals in an organization do not see the need to change current practices or adopt new methods or technologies, they resist change and are “satisfied with the status quo.” When teachers and school leaders perceive the current use of technologies as inadequate to reach the school’s learning goals, they are more motivated to explore and seek out alternative technologies. In order to promote dissatisfaction, it is often essential to create catalyst events demonstrating to teachers and leaders that the school’s goals could be more easily achieved or achieved to a greater degree by adopting and implementing a new technology. This disruption of the status quo can be achieved by providing data or research showing the impact technology can have on student learning.

Knowledge and skills refers to the degree to which individuals in the organization are prepared (i.e., possess the knowledge and skills) to successfully integrate the technology into their practice (Ely 1990, 1999). When teachers lack the necessary technical knowledge and skills to integrate a technology into their instructional practice, they often resist the use of the technology (Hew and Brush 2007; Zhao et al. 2002). It is important to recognize that the knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology extends beyond the teachers’ technology knowledge and skills, but also includes their pedagogical and content knowledge and their ability to integrate the three when developing instruction (Mishra and Koehler 2006).

Availability and access to resources refers to the infrastructure, policies, and practices within an organization that facilitate the use of a technology to meet the organization's goals (Ely 1990, 1999). Schools must provide adequate resources to ensure that competition for using technology is limited and must make access to the technology easy (Norris et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2002). If the school does not purchase enough of the resources or sets up policies, practices, or environmental constraints that limit access, teachers will be less willing to integrate technology into their lessons. With limited financial resources, schools may have to target technology integration around subjects and or grades while still maintaining the technology’s connection to the school’s overall vision and mission.

Adequate time refers to the willingness of the organization leaders to provide individuals with the time to become familiar with the technology and to develop an understanding of how the technology can be integrated into their practice. This includes time to explore and experiment with the technology. The key point is that this is paid time and not personal time (Ely 1990, 1999). This condition also represents the individuals’ willingness to use the available time for the purpose. Leaders in schools must afford teachers the opportunity to work with new technologies prior to actual classroom integration (Bauer and Kenton 2005; Feist 2003). These opportunities can take place with extra planning time, summer work, and institute days (Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee 2003). Schools can maximize integration by having teachers work together to explore and develop ways for integrating technology into lessons (Becker 2000).

Rewards and incentives refers to the organization’s willingness to provide positive rewards or incentivize individuals to integrate the technology. For some teachers, the incentive to use the technology can stem from personal interests in integrating technology, the opportunity technology provides to engage in more constructivist learning activities that make lessons more meaningful and relevant for students, and the ability to differentiate instruction (Becker 2000). Others may need more structured incentives and rewards. In such instances, technology use can be tied to teacher evaluations and rewarding teachers who integrate technology in ways that address the school’s curriculum and student outcomes.

Participation refers to the involvement of all stakeholders in the decision process, but in particular those members of the organization who will be responsible for integrating the technology into their practice (Ely 1990, 1999). Rather than leaving the decision and planning up to administrators, schools must involve teachers, parents, and staff in the decisions to adopt a technology and in the implementation planning. Including representatives from leadership, faculty, staff, and parents, schools establish buy in as all stakeholder groups are involved in the planning and decision-making. While involving all constituents in the school is impossible, the technology planning team must represent the various stakeholder groups, with each group having a role in selecting their representative.

Leadership refers to the role immediate supervisors such as managers, department chairs, technology coordinators, and team leaders play in implementing technology. Leaders assist individuals in overcoming immediate barriers to integration by creating a climate of support for integration efforts. Leaders serve as role models, cheerleaders, problem solvers, and liaison with upper management (Ely 1990, 1999). In school settings, this requires that leaders recognize and help showcase the efforts of teachers who are integrating technology. They facilitate integration by actively supporting planning, communicating, and delivering feedback on expectations regarding technology integration, and helping to align technology to student outcomes. Leaders also fulfill the role of coach or mentor by guiding teachers on methods for integrating technology (Kopcha 2010).

Commitment refers to the actions taken by powerbrokers in the organization who visibly indicate their commitment to technology implementation and integration (Ely 1990, 1999). Principals and district administrators represent the powerbrokers in schools, and openly display their commitment through actions such as communicating the perspective that technology is a critical component of the curriculum and necessary to reaching the vision and mission of the school. Powerbrokers display their commitment by acting on the other conditions, such as supporting PD, allocating recourses and time to develop the infrastructure, creating policies to support integration, and supporting rewards and incentives to motivate teachers to integrate technology.

These eight conditions provide a foundation for thinking about technology implementation by categorizing broad areas of organization and environmental factors that technology planning groups must consider and address when developing technology plans. Systematic plans that address these conditions increase the integration of technology.

24.4 RIPPLES

The RIPPLES model (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005) shares some similarities with the conditions described above. Originally developed to describe the components related to the successful development of online instruction at universities, the model has also proven useful in evaluating online technology integration at universities (Jasinski 2007). The model provides a set of general themes that need to be addressed when implementing technology and can be transferred to K-12 settings. The following section describes each component of the model and connects it to technology planning.

Resources are the financial sources available in the school to cover the direct costs of implementing technology, such as the purchase of software and hardware, as well as the indirect or hidden costs associated with maintaining it (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). Indirect costs include items such as upkeep of hardware, purchasing of software or application upgrades, personnel costs associated with maintaining the technology, and PD costs. Hidden costs include expenses that result from using the technology, such as purchase of storage devices, increase in printing charges, cables, projector bulbs, Wi-Fi access, routers, cloud storage costs, and mobile devices. As technology continues to advance, hidden costs continue to change, requiring financial plans to change as well. When financially planning for technology, schools must consider that indirect costs and hidden costs are long term and extend beyond the initial cost of purchasing the technology.

Infrastructure includes items associated with implementing the technology, such as space for storing and securing technology, sufficient internet speed if multiple computers are accessing the internet at one time, sufficient data storage space for student projects, building design to allow for the movement of technology if the technology is mobile, sufficient electrical outlets to power devices, and appropriate peripheral technology to support integration (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). Technology planning requires an examination of the required infrastructure needed to support the implementation of the technology. This requires that those planning for the technology have a firm vision of how the technology is to be integrated in order to examine the existing infrastructure and make recommendations for changes.

People refers to how individual personnel or groups in a school impact the implementation and integration of technology into the school (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). This includes the teacher’s personal perspective on the technology and its role in learning, emotional concerns such as fear and anxiety, as well as people resisting the change processes. When organizations change, even for the better, individuals often experience loss associated with the change (Bridges 2009). Similar to the participation described by Ely, this component includes the role those responsible for technology integration play in the decision making about the technology. When planning for technology, it is critical that all groups, including teachers, staff, parents, students, and leadership, are involved in the planning and that the plan acknowledges that implementation and integration involve human actions and feelings, and provide adequate opportunities for these to be addressed.

Policies cover the policies, procedures, and practices that are related to technology use in the school (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). Prior to introducing a new technology into a school, the planning groups must examine existing policies related to both technologies and pedagogical practice to ensure that they do not prevent the integration of the technology. Schools should also examine if policies help promote integration. Along with policies, schools must examine current procedures for using technology. This includes how technology is accessed and scheduled, how students gain accesses to technology after hours, and how technology is stored and maintained. Practice should also be examined, for example how does technology promote student learning? Is it skill and drill driven, mostly research driven, or production driven? Do teachers create integrated units across disciplines to encourage technology use in multiple ways? By examining current policies, procedures, and practices the school implementation group can make changes in order to maximize the integration of the technology into the classroom. A specific set of policies, procedures, and practice that require examination relates to teacher evaluation. Incorporating technology into personnel evaluations increases the likelihood of classroom technology integration.

Learning refers to the learning outcomes intended as a result of integrating technology and pedagogical benefits from using technology (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). For many, the integration of technology emphasizes increasing higher-order cognitive processing (i.e., synthesis, analysis, evaluation, and creation) of students (Howland, Jonassen and Marra 2012; Grabe and Grabe 2007) over advancing students’ standardized test scores. The difficulty with this lies in the incongruence between recommended pedagogical practices using technology that tend to emphasize problem- and project-based instruction that result in product-based assessments, and the societal emphasis placed on standardized test scores (Keller and Bichelmeyer 2004). Schools are often placed in a difficult position when their interests in promoting technology may detract from the federal or state obligations to meet test score standards. This requires schools to thoughtfully determine the desired consequences from implementing technology and to determine if these learning outcomes reflect those desired by the schools’ constituents.

Evaluation includes not just measuring the intended learning outcomes (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). It begins with examining the needs associated with the diffusion of the technology, progresses to an evaluation of the planning process, evaluates how implementation plans were carried out, and finally examines organizational and cultural shifts that occur as a result of using technologies. Schools must also examine the shifts in pedagogical practices and learning processes that result from the integration of technology to fully understand its value and impact.

Support: As schools move forward with technology implementation, teachers often face technological and pedagogical problems (Surry, Ensminger, and Haab 2005). Having personnel such as educational technologists dedicated to assisting teachers with integration is crucial. These support personnel can assist with technical problems as they arise, provide PD on both the technology and pedagogical aspects of integration, and assist directly in the integration efforts. Along with teachers, schools must recognize that both parents and students may require support related to the technology use. Again, this can include helping these constituents with technology-related problems and assisting them in understanding how technology can benefit the learning process.

Although resources is presented first in the RIPPLES model, the order does not indicate the importance of each component. Schools should employ a reverse engineering approach by determining the learning outcomes first then establish how technology will assist in reaching those outcomes. By focusing on the learning result of technology integration, decisions regarding which technology to adopt and how to address other components of the RIPPLES model are made in reference to how it impacts the learning outcomes.

24.5 Other Implementation Models

Readers may find it helpful to examine other models when thinking about technology planning.

The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) provides an approach to technology implementation from the perspective of the intended user. By assessing the teachers’ current levels of concern related to the technology and examining their levels of use, the model provides suggestions of how to address the concerns of teachers at different levels and how to move teachers along the levels of use. The model also includes processes for developing an innovation configuration map that creates a clear understanding of the intended outcomes of the implementation. The model assumes that the actual implementation occurs along a continuum from the similar-to-ideal implementation to very dissimilar-to-ideal implementation (Hall and Hord 2011).

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) originated in the field of information management systems (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989). Similar to the CBAM, the TAM focuses on the variables that influence the intended user’s behavior related to integrating the technology into their work. Intention to use the technology is driven by two main factors: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the technology. The TAM model has undergone several changes based on research, with a more detailed examination of the variables that affect the two main factors. This has provided a more detailed model describing variables about the context and the intended users that impact the two main factors (Venkatesh and Bala 2008). Examining the teacher’s perceptions of these variables can help those in charge of planning for technology gain a deeper insight into what might affect the final use of the technology in the classroom.

The ecological approach of technology adoption presents an evolutionary perspective of technology adoption based on the model of schools as ecosystems. The model examines a teacher’s specific niche in the school system, their interaction and compatibility with technology, and how the environment of the larger school system and other agents in the school impact the teacher’s practice with technology (Zhao, Lei, and Frank 2006; Zhao and Frank 2003).

Finally, planning teams would find it beneficial to examine the CREATER model of organizational change. While not a specific model for technology implementation, the model describes the behaviors and actions of the change agent at different stages of the implementation processes (Havelock and Zlotolow 1995). Technology planning teams would find the model beneficial when determining the actions to take at each stage of implementation.

24.6 Developing Technology Implementation Plans

Planning for technology implementation and integration involves making decisions and developing strategies to address essential areas. These include learning outcomes, stakeholders, needs assessments, organizational factors, budget, communications, action plans, PD, and evaluation. Both PD and evaluation are complex aspects to implementation planning and will be discussed in specific sections of this chapter.

The extensive work necessary to develop effective technology implementation plans requires an “all hands on deck” approach. Schools should utilize an implementation planning team to make the decisions, develop the plan, and determine what actions are needed to introduce a new technology. Teams should include members from all stakeholders groups, and be open to allowing individuals not on the team to attend meetings and provide input in to the planning processes. By including members of all stakeholder groups, we begin to address the participation condition described by Ely by ensuring that all groups are involved in the decision making and planning.

24.6.1 Learning outcomes

Whereas planning of technology requires addressing the available resources and infrastructure present in an organization, using these as the starting point for developing a technology plan can limit the planning to what technology can be afforded or supported by the organization. Rather, technology planning needs to focus on the intended learning outcome of students (Kopcha 2010; Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee 2003; Zhao et al. 2002). Technology teams need first to examine the learning mission and vision statement, curriculum, and pedagogical philosophies and practices that already exist and shape the culture of learning within the school (Hayes 2007; Kopcha 2010). The alignment to mission and pedagogical philosophy should begin during the adoption process when schools explore potential technologies that will address learning goals for students or address existing student performance weakness related to the school's curriculum. The desired learning goals and outcomes must be the central driving force of the technology plans.

When developing mission and vision statements, planning teams will find it helpful to look at the technology standards set by organizations such as the International Society for Technology in Education and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, as well as consulting state and district technology standards.

In instances where stakeholders are resistant, the planning team must serve as a catalyst to break the status quo and introduce evidence supporting how technology can improve current pedagogical practice, facilitate achievement of outcomes more effectively, or allow new outcomes not currently a part of the school's mission and vision to be introduced. The development of mission and visions statements allows the team to move forward and determine the goals and objectives of the technology plan.

To promote technology integration by teachers, separate goal and objectives must be written (Zhao et al. 2002) that align the individual technology to the overall technology mission and vision. Planning teams can utilize a backwards design approach to integrating technology by first establishing the specific learning and performance outcomes desired from the technology implementation. This should include how these outcomes and objectives will be assessed then developing classroom integration activities to promote learning (Dick, Carey and Carey 2001; Wiggins and McTighe 2005). Technology teams may find it helpful to use the CBAM (Hall and Hord 2011) component of innovation configuration to create implementation maps that reflect the continuum of expected outcomes. By comparing maps of the ideal implementation with actual outcomes, the technology team can assess how well the technology integration is leading to the plan’s goals and adjust the plan based on this data. Depending on the technology being adopted and the scale of diffusion among the teachers, objectives for individual teachers may be written into the plan (Kopcha 2010; Zhao et al. 2002). The outcomes and objectives become the central focus of the planning, with decisions and strategies for the other components of planning supporting the learning outcomes component (see Figure 24.2).

24.7 Professional Development for Technology Planning

PD is considered an essential component for successful technology implementation and integration (Hew and Brush 2007; Koehler and Mishra 2005), and directly addresses the conditions of knowledge and skills (Ely 1990, 1999). As the gatekeepers to the classroom, the level of comfort and knowledge a teacher possesses regarding his or her use of technology in the class impacts integration.

Ertmer (1999) suggests that teachers’ beliefs about technology have a greater influence on their integration of the technology than resources and other contextual factors. The TPCK model describes technology integration from the knowledge perspective of the teacher, purporting that teachers’ beliefs in technology integration lie in their own technology knowledge and how this knowledge intersects with their pedagogical and content knowledge (Mishra and Koehler 2006). This model has implications for the level of technology integration that occurs not only within a school, but also within particular content areas and aids in conceptualizing how PD can be approached in implementation planning.

The TPCK model (Mishra and Koehler 2006), later renamed TPACK (Thompson and Mishra 2007), builds on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original thinking that teacher knowledge consisted of many different types of knowledge. TPACK suggests the amount of intersection across content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technology knowledge influences teachers’ technology integration practices. Content knowledge represents the knowledge (e.g., theories, principles and how they operate) that a teacher possesses about a subject and their view of the appropriate content level for their students’ learning. Pedagogical knowledge represents the broader knowledge related to education, such as learning processes, how learners construct knowledge, how instruction is designed and delivered, how classrooms operate, foundational learning, and developmental theories (Mishra and Koehler 2006; Shulman 1986). Technology knowledge represents the level of understanding about how technology works and the skills needed to set up, operate, and maintain technology. While Mishra and Koehler (2006) describe technology knowledge as the understanding and skills associated with the standard technologies in general, specific digital technologies can be distinct enough (e.g., tablets versus interactive white boards) that teachers may have pockets of technology knowledge, rather than broader technology knowledge. Technology teams that take the time to conduct both needs and asset assessment profiles of teachers’ technology will gain a better understanding of both general technology knowledge and pockets of technology knowledge among their faculty.

The intersection of content and pedagogical knowledge signifies a teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. This includes knowledge of specific methods of strategies for teaching particular topics or skills and how to address the needs of particular sets of learners, including the specific knowledge teachers possess about their own students’ prior knowledge or misconceptions (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Pedagogical content knowledge is seen in the practices (instructional activities, assessment strategies, presentation of content, and resources) of teachers as they facilitate learning in their classrooms by making the content accessible to their students. The overlapping of technology knowledge with content knowledge indicates the teachers’ understanding of how technology can shape how content knowledge is learned (Mishra and Koehler 2006). For example, using mind-mapping software and apps can allow students to generate visual maps of the structure and underling elements of essays. The intersection of pedagogical and technology knowledge denotes the understanding of how teaching and the design of instruction change when technology is introduced into the classroom.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue that successful technology integration lies at the intersection between teachers' content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technology knowledge. For optimal success, this requires that teachers have a strong understanding of how technology can be used to promote learning, being aware of which technologies are most appropriate to particular instructional activities and which technologies facilitate the learning of specific principles, theories, and skills in a discipline. The difficulty is that each teacher has a varying amount of each type of knowledge, thus changing the amount of intersection of two or all three types of knowledge. This can result in vastly different amounts of integration of a specific technology within a single school and across disciplines. This is compounded when schools introduce multiple forms of technology, as teachers struggle to determine the most effective means to use technology given their knowledge base. TPACK provides a structure for understanding the technology PD needs of teachers.

When planning for PD, the technology team should first determine the goals and outcomes of the PD and specifically the key classroom actions of teachers upon completion of PD. After deciding on the key actions, the team can use the TPACK model to determine the specific technology and pedagogical knowledge and skills required. It may be helpful to enlist subject teachers to help identify any specific content knowledge needed to achieve the actions, or the PD should provide opportunities for subject teachers to work together to identify the content knowledge needed for these actions.

Once a teacher’s classroom actions are linked to the specific forms of knowledge, these should then be aligned to the overall goals and objectives of the implementation plan and the school’s mission and goals. This alignment will allow the planning team to develop an impact metric for the PD and communicate how the PD aligns with the overall implementation plan. Table 24.1 shows an example impact metric. By developing impact metrics the team can identify the critical knowledge and skills needed to meet the key classroom actions. This allows the team to develop training needs assessments to determine to what extent teachers already posses the types of knowledge and skills needed, and to differentiate the PD to address school-wide knowledge gaps or the knowledge gaps of specific teachers. The key classroom actions also provide starting points for developing the teacher performance evaluation rubrics that can be integrated into the performance management policies and procedures. Once the team has designed the specific metrics for the PD, they must next determine the appropriate means of carrying it out.

The approaches for providing PD vary. Harris (2008a) identified five broad approaches to teacher PD: instructor organized, individualized learning, collaborative learning, data inquiry, and material development, with more specific models or approaches within each broad category. Harris (2008b) suggests that when developing PD schools should attempt to match the method of PD to teachers’ adopter characteristics (Rodgers 1995).

• Innovators, who are open to adopting the technology quickly and tend to be ahead of the rest of the community regarding integration, will be more willing to explore and learn on their own or with other innovators. This group will benefit most from an individualized or collaborative inquiry based approach to PD. It may be most effective to allow these learners to play with the technology and seek out ways to integrate it into their classrooms.
• Those who make up the early adopter group share some of the adventurousness of innovators, but unlike innovators they understand that not all others share their enthusiasm. This group are often seen as leaders in technology integration and serve as a resource to others. This group is served well by PD approaches that allow them to engage in group learning that supports their interest in generating knowledge about the technology, developing skills, planning integration, and solving problems.
• The early majority tends to use a technology once it has gained ground and acceptance within the organization and often diffuse the technology quickly among their own group. This group benefits from small group and large group learning, particularly when collaboration is involved.
• The late majority integrates technology slowly and tends to take a wait-and-see approach. They are influenced by how others use technology and will often succumb to peer pressure when a technology is widely diffused in the school. This group benefits from structured PD that involves building awareness, observing others, and coaching or peer mentoring.
• Laggards represent the last group to integrate technology, who tend to only integrate a technology once it is a requirement of their position. This group is best served by individualized learning plans and direct face-to-face instruction and support (Harris 2008b), as well as personalized performance management plans.

Regardless of the approach taken, 20–25% of the annual technology budget should be designated for PD (Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee 2003). This ensures that technology PD will occur to meet the needs of the implementation plan.

Finally, PD plans should involve coaching and mentoring after the training has occurred or as an additional method for developing integration practices (Atkins and Vasu 2000; Bradshaw 2002). Mentors can increase teachers’ integration efficacy, appropriate role model, and new ways of integrating technology (Ertmer 1999; Hew and Brush 2007; Matzen and Edmunds 2007). Readers interested in professional learning communities for technology integration will find Kopcha’s (2010) article informative on this topic.

24.8 Evaluating Technology Implementation and Integration

The evaluation process for technology integration commences when implementation planning begins and should be ongoing. Needs assessments represent the first steps in the evaluation processes (Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman 2004) by providing information that shapes the plan and informs decision making. Once implementation begins, the planning group has a responsibility to examine the progression of the plan, make real-time changes based on evaluation data, and communicate the technology’s value. While there are multiple approaches to conducting evaluations, two models, AEIOU (Simonson et al. 2011; Simonson and Sparks 2001) and CIAO (Jones et al. 1996; Scanlon et al. 2000), have been utilized to evaluate technology.

The AEIOU model derives its name from the organization framework for developing the evaluation plan. Each part of the framework, accountability, effectiveness, impact, organizational context, and unanticipated consequences focuses on central questions and information needs that drive the evaluation.

24.8.5 Unanticipated outcomes

While implementation planning involves setting goals and objectives, often the implementation process produces outcomes that were not predicated. It is critical to identify unanticipated outcomes and the impact on the technology plan. The central question used to address this component of the model is, “What happened that we did not expect to happen, and how did it impact the plan?” Anticipated outcomes often come to the surface when we listen to anecdotal accounts of people’s experiences that have significance to the ongoing implementation and the future planning of the school (Simonson et al. 2011). By nature, it is difficult to collect data on unintended outcomes, but it is possible to formally document them through interviews, focus groups, communities of practice, and reflective writings.

The AEIOU model address both summative and formative aspects of program evaluation and makes no prescriptive statements regarding the collection of qualitative or quantitative data (Simonson et al. 2011). Based on a pragmatic perspective of evaluation, the AEIUO model is adaptive to the changing informational needs of the school as the implementation plan advances. The flexibility of this model allows evaluators to select specific components of the model and ask evaluation questions that directly relate to their information needs. Table 24.2 provides example evaluation questions for the components of the AEIOU model and recommends methods of data collection for these questions.

Component	Evaluation questions	Data	Method
Accountability	Did we purchase all the hardware and software?	Count of hardware and software	Analysis of purchase records, count of working hardware, number of computers with installed software
	Did all teachers receive professional development on the technology?	Number of faculty who attended training	Analysis of attendance sheets for professional development
Effectiveness	How are teachers using the technology?	Lessons that are integrating specific technology	Analysis of lesson plans, classroom observations
	How are students learning with technology?	Cognitive changes in students	Classroom assessments, grades
Impact	How have tests scores changed since technology implementation?	Achievement levels of students	Longitudinal examination of standardized test scores
	How is teaching more meaningful?	Perceptions of the technology and attitudes towards technology	Interviews, focus groups, questionnaires
Organizational factors	How did leadership help or hinder the implementation?	Actions taken by leadership, perceptions of leadership behaviors	Questionnaires, interviews
	How did communication influence the implementation?	Perceptions of communication, attitudes towards implementation plan	Interviews, focus groups, questionnaires
Unanticipated outcomes	What occurred that caused us to change our plan?	Outcomes, perceptions, attitudes	Interviews, focus groups, reflective writings
	How did we address the problems?	Decisions made and actions taken during course of the implementation	Interviews, focus groups, reflective writings

While the AEIOU model focuses on evaluating the implementation plan, the CIAO model focuses on the integration practices of the teachers. This model examines three key components of technology integration in the classroom: context, interaction, and outcomes (Jones et al. 1996; Scanlon et al. 2000). The CIAO model involves a holistic perspective for evaluating technology integration by examining how the context surrounding the use of technology and how students’ interact with technology influence the outcomes achieved.

Context in this model refers to evaluating where and how the technology is integrated into the course or the lesson. This can also extend to examining how the technology fits within the larger framework of the school’s communities, curriculum, mission, and vision. When developing lessons that include technology, instructors must think about the rationale for the technology, how the technology fits with the educational goals and objectives of the lesson, and how it promotes learning. Context also examines places where students use technology (e.g., in the classroom, computer lab, at home) for the lesson (Scanlon et al. 2000). Examining the context allows teachers to identify the environmental factors that hinder technology use during a lesson and allows them to make changes to the environment to promote the use of technology in the future.

Interactions focus the evaluation on how students use and work with the technology in order to promote their leaning. This includes how students interact with the technology individually, how they interact with each other without technology, and how they use technology to interact with one another (Jones et al. 1996; Scanlon et al. 2000). Evaluating the nature of the interactions provides an understanding of how technology influences the learning processes (Scanlon et al. 2000). While technology can expand the audience for whom students can interact and provide students with opportunities to collaborate, the technology can also become a barrier to interaction that can result in greater miscommunications and misunderstandings. Examining the nature of students’ interactions and how these interactions both promote and hinder the learning process provides valuable information that teachers can use to adjust lessons and instructional activities.

Outcomes represent a broad range of changes in students’ cognitive and affective states. Similar to impact in the AEIOU model, outcome evaluation focuses on the intended learning objectives of the implementation plan or the specific learning objectives of a lesson. When evaluating outcomes, it is critical that the evaluation does more than document whether outcomes occurred. The evaluation questions should examine the connections between context, interactions and outcomes. When exploring these connections, questions must address how context and interactions influenced both affective elements of students’ learning (i.e., changes in students’ attitudes and perceptions) and cognitive elements of students’ learning (Scanlon et al. 2000). While not explicitly stated, unanticipated outcomes are also a part of this element of the CIAO model.

The CIAO model presents three interrelated elements of technology integration, suggests that to evaluate technology integration, information must be gathered around each element, and examines how the three elements affect one another. This approach to evaluation uses both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. Table 24.3 provides example evaluation question for each element of the CIAO model and recommends methods of data collection.

	Evaluation questions	Data	Methods
Context	How does the technology fit with the learning goal and objectives of the lesson?	Rationale or explanation for selecting and using particular software or hardware in lesson	Analysis of lesson plans, interviews of teacher, observation of classroom
Interactions	How do students use technology to interact with one another to promote learning?	Records of student interactions, students’ practices with technology learning, student’s perceptions about using technology for communication	Student journals, observations of students, interviews or focus groups with students
Outcomes	How has student learning changed as a result of the technology integration?	Cognitive aspects of learning (e.g., achievement scores, classroom assessments, critical-thinking skills) and affective measures of student learning (e.g., student attitudes towards subject, perceptions of technology)	Cognitive-longitudinal study or pretest post-test of assessments, examination of assessment rubrics Affective interviews, focus groups, questionnaires

Regardless of the approach or model used to conduct an evaluation, it is critical for schools to engage in ongoing evaluation of their technology implementation and integration efforts. Schools must use the information gained through evaluations to make future decisions and develop plans of actions that will further promote their technology integration efforts and refine their understanding of how technology promotes student learning and capacity for learning.

Finally, PD requires its own evaluation plan. While the AEIOU model can be adapted for PD evaluations, there exist several models specifically developed for evaluating training. Kirkpatrick (1998) provides a model widely used in business and industry training, and examines the training on four levels. The first level evaluates the participants’ satisfaction with the training. The second focuses on the participants' learning. The third examines the change in behaviors of the participants once PD is completed. The fourth examines the impact the training had on the organization. Guskey and Sparks (1991) developed a similar model for education suggesting that evaluation of education PD must assess the changes in the participants, the changes in the organization, and the changes in the students.

Desimone (2009) proposed an evaluation framework based on the literature describing quality PD. The framework assumes a progressive trajectory of growth in the participant that ultimately impacts student achievement. The first step of the evaluation examines the characteristics of the PD to assess its overall quality. The second step assesses the changes in teachers’ knowledge and pedagogical beliefs. The third step examines the changes in classroom instruction practices. The fourth step examines student achievement. The trajectory model built into Desimone’s framework calls for evaluation at all steps, allowing the technology team to examine how the PD worked along the growth model and determine where along the trajectory it did not work. Figure 24.3 provides a view of Desimone’s framework applied to technology PD.

24.9 Researching Technology Implementation

The purpose of this chapter was to discuss the planning for technology implementation in K-12 settings. Successful implementation and integration needs to be driven by research-based models and practice. Design-based research provides an excellent approach for studying the design and development, as well as the implementation of technology in K-12 settings (McKenny and Reeves 2012; Penuel et al. 2011). Design-based research models fit with the National Center for Education Research call for continuous improvement-based research that utilizes research approaches that provide for formative evaluation, experimentation, and study of the critical processes and outcomes that are part of improvement strategies (Institute of Education Sciences 2013).

Design-based approaches to research share four common practices: (1) collaboration between multiple stakeholders (e.g., teachers, administration, university researchers), allowing for multiple perspectives of problems, (2) a pragmatic approach to the studying complexity present in learning and systems change, (3) use of continuous cycles of inquiry to examine both practical and theoretical issues related to learning and change, and (4) An interest in developing capacity within an organization to sustain change and improvement (McKenny and Reeves 2012; Penuel et al. 2011).

The basic principles of design-based approaches to research are to conduct studies in the “real world,” paying close attention to the contextual variables that influence the innovation and then to use the knowledge gained through iterative cycles of study and analysis to further the design, development, and implementation of the innovation. The use of design-based research to study technology innovations is common (Anderson and Shattuck 2012), with some design-based research studies specifically examining the implementation of technology (Blumenfeld et al. 2000).

Design-based research seeks to balance knowledge generation between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge, therefore it can serve as an excellent research approach to study the implementation of technology and to further our theoretical understandings of how to develop technology plans while simultaneously supporting practitioners currently developing and implementing technology plans. Researchers specifically interested in using design-based implementation research to study the diffusion of technology in schools should become familiar with the theories, processes, and components of technology planning.

24.10 Conclusion

Successful technology implementation and integration requires systematic planning and involvement of all stakeholders. Schools need to consider the theoretical models that provide understanding of how schools can address organizational and human factors when there is diffusion of new technology into the school. Schools must create planning around the desired student learning outcomes then make planning decisions and take actions on organizational factors that will help to facilitate the achievement of theses outcomes. Schools must consider the knowledge and efficacy needs of teachers and plan for training impact by providing appropriate technological, pedagogical, and content PD along with providing adequate time for teachers to plan, experiment, and develop fluency with technology. Finally, schools must actively engage in evaluation and design-based research activities that provide information to allow planning teams to monitor progress, make meaningful changes to improve the plan, determine the impact of the technology, and further our theoretical understanding of technology planning.

References

1. Anderson, Terry and Julie Shattuck. 2012. “Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?” Educational Researcher 41 1: 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813.
2. Atkins, Nancy E. and Ellen S. Vasu. 2000. “Measuring knowledge of technology usages and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8 4: 279–302.
3. Bauder, Deborah Y. 1993. “Computers in K-12 schools: Conditions related to adoption and implementation.” PhD dissertation, Syracuse University. ProQuest (304079635).
4. Bauer, John and Jeffery Kenton. 2005. “Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13 4: 519–546.
5. Becker, Henry J. 2000. “How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools.” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 1 2: 274–93. Accessed 24 February 2015: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/seminal/article1.htm.
6. Becker, Henry J. and Jason L. Ravitz. 2001. “Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington April. Accessed 24 February 2015: www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/aera_2001.pdf.
7. Berman, Paul. 1981. “Educational change an implementation paradigm.” In Improving Schools Using What We Know, edited by Michael B. Kane and Rolf Lehming: pp. 253–89. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. ISBN-10: 0803916248.
8. Blumenfeld, Phyllis, Barry J. Fishman, Jospeh Krajcik, Roland W. Marx, and Elliot Soloway. 2000. “Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools.” Educational Psychologist 35 3: 149–64. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2.
9. Bradshaw, Lynn. 2002. “Technology for teaching and learning: strategies for staff development and follow-up support.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10 1: 131–50. Norfolk, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved 27 February 2015: http://www.editlib.org/p/9307.
10. Bridges, William. 2009. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. ASIN: B00SLT4VLG.
11. Burkman, Ernest. 1987. “Factors affecting utilization.” In Instructional Technology: Foundations, edited by Robert M. Gagne: pp. 429–55. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN-10: 0898598788.
12. Cuban, Larry, Heather Kirkpatrick, and Craig C. Peck. 2001. “high access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.” American Educational Research Journal 38 4: 813–34. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813.
13. Davis, Fred. D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.” Management Science 35 8: 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
14. Desimone, Laura. 2009. “Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures.” Educational Researcher 38 3: 181–99. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140.
15. Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, and James O. Carey. 2001. The systematic design of instruction, 5th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. ISBN-10: 0205585566.
16. Easley, Larry and Steven Hoffman. 2000. “Creating an electronic classroom: a practical guide.” International Journal of Social Education 15 1: 80–93.
17. Ely, Donald P. 1990. “Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations.” Journal on Research on Computing in Education 23 2: 298–305. doi:10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963.
18. Ely, Donald P. 1999. “Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations.” Educational Technology 39 6: 23–27.
19. Ensminger, David C. and Daniel W. Surry. 2008. “Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate innovation implementation in the USA”. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 24 5: 611–26. Accessed 24 February 2015: www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/ensminger.pdf.
20. Ensminger, David C., Daniel W. Surry, Barry E. Porter, and Dawn Wright. 2004. “Factors contributing to the successful implementation of technology innovations.” Educational Technology and Society 7 3: 61–72.
21. Ertmer, Peggy A. 1999. “Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration.” Educational Technology Research and Development 47 4: 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597.
22. Feist, Lynn. 2003. “Removing barriers to professional development.” T.H.E. Journal 30 11: 30–36.
23. Grabe, Mark and Cindy Grabe. 2007. Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning, 5th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN-10: 061863701X.
24. Guskey, Thomas R. and Dennis Sparks. 1991. “What to consider when evaluating staff development.” Educational Leadership 49: 73–76. Accessed 24 February 2015: www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199111_guskey.pdf.
25. Hadley, Martha and Karen Sheingold. 1993. “Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers.” American Journal of Education 101 3: 261–315. doi:10.1086/444044.
26. Hall, Gene. E. and Shirley M. Hord. 2011. Implementing change, patterns, principles, and potholes, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. ISBN-10: 0133351920.
27. Harris, Judi 2008a. “One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development. Part two: Choosing ETPD models.” Learning and Leading with Technology 35 6: 22–26.
28. Harris, Judi 2008b. “One size doesn’t fit all: Customizing educational technology professional development. Part three: Combining goals & models to fit teachers’ characteristics & needs.” Learning and Leading with Technology 36 1: 22–25.
29. Havelock, Ronald G. and Steve Zlotolow. 1995. The Change Agents’ Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. ISBN 0877782792, 9780877782797.
30. Hayes, Debra N. A. 2007. “ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms.” Computers & Education 49 2: 385–95. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.003.
31. Hew, Khe Foon and Thomas Brush. 2007. “Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.” Educational Technology Research and Development 55 3: 223–52. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.
32. Hinson, Janice, Kimberly LaPrairie, and Deborah Heroman. 2006. “A failed effort to overcome tech barriers in a K-12 setting: What went wrong and why.” International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 2 2: 148–58.
33. Howland, Jane L., David Joanassen, and Rose M. Marra. 2012. Meaningful Learning with Technology, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson. ISBN-10: 0132565587.
34. Institute of Education Sciences. 2013. Seeking Comment on New IES Research Topic, Continuous Improvement Research in Education. Accessed 24 February 2015: www.aascu.org/grcinfo/et/IESReserch_Topic.pdf.
35. Jasinski, Marie. 2007. Innovate and Integrate: Embedding Innovation Practices. Australian Flexible Learning Framework. Accessed 24 February, 2015: http://flexiblelearning.net.au/wp-content/uploads/Innovate_and_Integrate_Report1.pdf.
36. Jones, Ann, Eileen Scanlon, Cana Blake, Philip Butcher, Joel Greenburg, Pat Murphy, and Shelag Ross. 1996. “Evaluating CAL at the Open University: 15 years on.” Computers & Education 26 1–3: 5–15. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(95)00064-X.
37. Keller, John and Barbara A. Bichelmeyer. 2004. “What happens when accountability meets technology integration.” TechTrends 48 3: 17–24. doi:10.1007/BF02763351.
38. Kirkpatrick, Daniel. 1998. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 2nd ed. San Fransisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN-10: 1576750426.
39. Koehler, Matthew. J. and Punya Mishra. 2005. “Teachers learning technology by design.” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 21 3: 94–102. doi:10.1080/10402454.2005.10784518.
40. Kopcha, Theodore J. 2010. “A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice.” Education Technology Research and Development 58 2: 175–190. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4.
41. Kopcha, Theodore J. and Howard Sullivan. 2007. “Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’ educational technology practices.” Educational Technology Research and Development 55 6: 627–46. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9011-8.
42. Lim, Cher, P. and Myint S. Khine. 2006. “Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14 1: 97–125.
43. Matzen, Nita J. and Julie A. Edmunds. 2007. “Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39 4: 417–30. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782490.
44. McKenney, Susan and Thomas C. Reeves. 2012. Conducting Educational Design Research. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415618045.
45. Mishra, Punya and Matthew J. Koehler. 2006. “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.” Teachers College Record 108 6: 1017–54.
46. Norris, Cathleen, Terry Sullivan, James Poirot, and Elliot Soloway. 2003. “No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36 1: 15–27. doi:10.1080/15391523.2003.10782400.
47. Penuel, William R., Barry J. Fishman, Britte Haugan Cheng, and Nora Sabelli. 2011. “Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design.” Educational Researcher 40 7: 331–37. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826.
48. Ravitz, Jason L. 1999. “Conditions that facilitate teacher internet use in schools with high internet connectivity: A national survey.” PhD dissertation, Syracuse University. ProQuest (304563716).
49. Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press. ISBN-10: 0029266718.
50. Rosen, Larry and Michelle M. Weil. 1995. “Computer availability, computer experience, and technophobia among public school teachers.” Computers in Human Behavior 11 1: 9–31. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(94)00018-D.
51. Rossi, H. Peter, Mark W. Lipsey, and Howard E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. ISBN: 9780761908944.
52. Scanlon, Eileen, Ann Jones, Jane Barnard, Julie Thompson, and Judith Calder. 2000. “Evaluating information and communication technologies for learning.” Educational Technology and Society 3 4: 101–107.
53. Shulman, Lee. 1986. “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.” Educational Researcher 15 2: 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004.
54. Shulman, Lee. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57 1: 1–23.
55. Simonson, Michael R., Sharon Smaldino, Michael Albright, and Susan Zvacek. 2011. Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 0132487314.
56. Simonson, Michael and Kristin Sparks. 2001. “Learning at a distance in South Dakota: Evaluation of the process.” TechTrends 45 3: 38–43. doi:10.1007/BF02763556.
57. Surry, Daniel W., David C. Ensminger, and Melissa Haab 2005. “Strategies for integrating instructional technology into higher education.” British Journal of Educational Technology 36 2: 327–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00461.x.
58. Surry, Daniel W. and Susan M. Land. 2000. “Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use technology.” Innovations in Education and Training International 37 2: 1–9. doi:10.1080/13558000050034501.
59. Thompson, Ann D. and Punya Mishra. 2007. “Breaking news: TPCK Becomes TPACK!” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 24 2: 38, 64. doi:10.1080/10402454.2007.10784583.
60. Venkatesh, Viswanath and Hillol Bala. 2008. “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.” Decision Sciences 39 2: 273–315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
61. Whitehead, Bruce M., Devon F. N. Jensen, and Floyd Boschee. 2003. Planning for Technology: A Guide for School Administrators, Technology Coordinators, and Curriculum Leaders. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. ISBN-13: 978-1452268262.
62. Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. ISBN-10: 1-4166-0035-3.
63. Zhao, Yong and Kenneth A. Frank. 2003. “Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.” American Educational Research Journal 40 4: 807–40. doi:10.3102/00028312040004807.
64. Zhao, Yong, Jing Lei, and Kenneth A. Frank. 2006. “The social life of technology: An ecological analysis of technology diffusion in schools.” Pedagogies 1 2: 135–49. doi:10.1207/s15544818ped0102_5.
65. Zhao, Yong, Kevin Pugh, Stephen Sheldon, and Joe L. Bryers. 2002. “Conditions for classroom technology innovations.” Teachers College Record 104 3: 482–515.