Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dynamic Framework to Guide the Implementation and Evaluation of Educational Technologies

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One vision for Ontario schools is that the use of information and communication technology (ICT) will profoundly change both teaching and learning. Given the diversity of school settings, however, system-wide ICT integration and implementation must necessarily be defined in multiple ways. This paper presents a decision-making framework for guiding the infusion of ICT into different school settings. First, sustainability of the ICT initiative is the identified as the key goal. Next, multiple contextual variables are distilled into five essential qualities. Then, sustainability and the essential elements are combined. The result is a dynamic framework that can be used to identify specific priorities for implementation and strategies for evaluation of ICT initiatives. Finally, it is illustrated how the framework can be used to guide the successful infusion of ICT in any situation, regardless of a school's previous experience with ICT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alspaugh, J.W. (1999) The relationship between the number of students per computer and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000) The link to higher scores. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, R. Pea (ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 112–125.

  • Biggs, J. and Collis, K. F. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes. Academic Press, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, (May), 61–72.

  • Brush, T. A., Armstrong, J., Barbrow, D., and Ulintz, L. (1999) Design and delivery of integrated learning systems: Their impact on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 475–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2000) New technology standards for teachers. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, R. D. Pea (ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA, pp. 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, E. and Badgett, J. (1999) A comparative analysis of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on student achievement in differing science and demographical areas. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18, 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. J. and Estes, F. (1999) The development of authentic educational technologies. Educational Technology, 39, 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, H. (1999) Implementing technology in schools. MS. ERIC, Eric Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 437018.

  • Coley, R. J. (1997) Technology's impact. Electronic School [On-line]. Available: http://www.electronic-school.com/0997f3.html

  • Collins, M. and Berge, Z. (2000) Technological minimalism in distance education. Horizon [On-line]. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2000-ll.asp

  • Collis, B. (1997) Pedagogical reengineering: A pedagogical approach to course enrichment and redesign with the WWW. Educational Technology Review, 8, 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, N. and Johnston, M. (2000) Why can't we just get on with it? Forces that complicate the integration of technology into teaching and learning. Horizon [On-line]. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2000-09b.asp

  • Cooley, V. E. (1998) Twelve strategies for implementing a major technology initiative in your school district. Clearing House, 71, 350–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. and Peck, C. (2001) High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiBella, A. J. and Nevis, E. C. (1998) How Organizations Learn. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A. and Gabbard, R. (1998) Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edge, J. and Richards, K. (1998) Why best practice is not good enough. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 570–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann, S. C. (1995) Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology and higher learning? Change, (March/April), 20–27.

  • Ehrmann, S. C. (2000) Technology and educational revolution: Ending the cycle of failure. Teaching and Technology Learning Group [On-line]. Available: www.tltgroup.org/resources/V_Cycle_of_Failure.html

  • Ellesworth, J. B. (2000) Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models, Information Resources Publications. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1990) Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 298–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1999) Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 42, 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., and Ross, E. M. (2001) Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. and Hruskocy, C. (1999) Impacts of a university- elementary school partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-enz, J. (1993) The truth about “Best Practice”. Human Resource Planning, 16, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. G. and Stiefelbauer, S. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking Penguin Inc., New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, T. K. and Melmed, A. (2000) Challenges of creating a nation of technology-enabled schools. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, R. Pea (ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 48–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. G. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000) The survey of information technology in US higher education. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Graduate University, The Campus Computing Project. Available: www.campuscomputing.net/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, T. (1998) Building the constructivist tool box: An exploration of cognitive technologies. Educational Technology, 38, 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, S. W. and Jones, M. G. (1999) The five levels of web use in education: Factors to consider in planning on-line courses. Educational Technology, 28–32.

  • Honey, M., McMillan Gulp, K., and Carrigg, F. (2000) Perspectives on technology and education research: Lessons from the past and present. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C., Cox, M. J., and Watson, D. M. (1994) Evaluating the impact of IT on pupils’ achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 138–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. N. (1999) Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New Competition in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khaleel, I. A. (1988) The spiral-interactive program evaluation model. Educational Technology, May, 43–48.

  • Maddux, C. D. (1998) The world wide web: Some simple solutions to common design problems. Educational technology, 38, 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., and Kottkamp, R. (1998) West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional program. Miliken Exchange on Education Technology. WV.

  • McDermott, L. and Murray, J. (2000) A study on the effective use and integration of technology into the primary curriculum. St. Xavier University, IL: Master's Action Research Project. ERIC, Eric Document Reproduction Service, No. 445669.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, D. (1998) Best practice - Hype or hope? TESOL Quarterly, 32, 493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Penuel, W. R., and Padilla, C. (2001) The Connected School: Technology and Learning in High School. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najjar, L. J. (1996) Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Knowledge Network for Learning (OKNL) (2000) Our Vision of Ontario 2004. Report from three work groups: Learner expectations and assessment, educator roles and responsibilities for ICT, learning environments and resources. Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, Ministry of Education, Toronto, ON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passey, D. (1999) Strategic evaluation of the impacts of learning of educational technologies: Exploring some of the issues for evaluators and future evaluation audiences. Education and Information Technologies, 4, 223–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, B. J. (1995) Education for an Information Age: Teaching in a Computerized Classroom. WC Brown, Bubuque, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Knopf Publications, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reaux, R. A., Enrich, R. W., McCreary, F., Rowland, K., and Hood, S. (1998) PCs for families: A study of early intervention using networked computing in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 383–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., and Havriluk, M. A. (1997) Integrating Technology into Teaching. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. The Free Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. R. (1999) The no Significant Difference Phenomenon. North Carolina State University, North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2000) Engaging students in a knowledge society. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, R. Pea (ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 312–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, and Woodruff, E. (1989) Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J. and Fagnano, C. (1999) Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. (2000) The spiral modelSM: Four steps to continuous performance improvement. [On-line]. Available: http://www.solutiond.com/smart-wins~spiral-model-four-steps-to-continuous-performance-improvement.htm

  • Tapscott, D. (2000) The digital divide. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, R. Pea (ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetreault, D. R. (1998) How technology affects student achievement. School Business Affairs, 64(2), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venezky, R. L. (2001) Procedures for evaluating the impact of complex educational interventions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. M. (2001) Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6, 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, M. J. (1999) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiburg, K. M., Montoya, N., and Sandin, J. (1999) Nuestra Tierra: A university/public school technology integration project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21, 183–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. J. (1996) Assessing Students in Classrooms and Schools. Allyn and Bacon Canada, Scarborough, ON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee, D. L. (2000) Images of school principals’ information and communications technology leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Elaine Van Melle & Luigia Cimellaro

  2. Evaluation, Planning and Assessment, Faculty of Education, Queen's University at Kingston, ON, Canada, K7L3N6

    Lyn Shulha

Authors
  1. Elaine Van Melle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigia Cimellaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lyn Shulha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L. & Shulha, L. A Dynamic Framework to Guide the Implementation and Evaluation of Educational Technologies. Education and Information Technologies 8, 267–285 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026312110143

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026312110143

Search

Navigation