LEVELS OF TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION (LOTI): A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY USE.

Since the introduction of the Apple IIe computer in the early 1980s, the term ” technology ” has represented a broad range of interests and has been the subject of numerous interpretations. In school systems nationwide , technology has been the focus of curriculum renewal projects and school funding debates. It has been the rallying cry for leading many school districts into the 21st century.

Our fascination with technology stems, in large degree, from its ambiguity within existing paradigms. Does technology represent things, like computers, modems, pencils, microscopes, and televisions; words or ideas, like ” progress ” and ” change ” ; processes, like animal breeding and voting ; or delivery systems, like expert systems and novice systems? Each perspective on technology has its unique attributes and leads the individual to different conclusions and implementation strategies.

Attempts in the early 1980s to bring technology into education involved the creation of computer literacy classes at the elementary and secondary levels. From region to region, these courses were quite similar in their offerings—they taught students about the parts of the computer, keyboarding fundamentals, word processing, drill-and-practice applications , and introductory programming.

Even with the exponential advances in electronic technology, their legacy can still be found today in the guise of integrated learning systems and central word processing and remediation labs. As one observes the current uses of computer technology nationwide, a few distinct patterns emerge. • Staff development opportunities for teachers to explore the potential of computer technology are oftentimes insufficient and misdirected. • Most computer technology is used for isolated activities unrelated to a central instructional theme, concept, or topic. •

The use of the computer is often one step removed from the classroom teacher. • Technology is used to sustain the existing curricula rather than serve as a catalyst for change. • The majority of district or site technology plans do not establish a significant link between the need for technology and identifiable instructional priorities (e.g., emphasizing higher order thinking skills or restructuring the science and mathematics curriculum).

Instead, they emphasize a need to meet a vaguely defined computer/student ratio or establish districtwide local area networks. At best, the role of technology has complemented the conventional instructional curriculum and its corresponding emphasis on expository teaching, traditional verbal activities, sequential instructional materials, and evaluation practices characterized by multiple-choice, short-answer, and true-or-false responses. When planning staff development targeting classroom integration of technology