Technology Applications for Students with Disabilities

Program Director: Emma Hoerger ehoerger1@my.westga.edu

MEDT 8462 Leading and Managing Instruction Technology Programs

Spring 2017

1
 Abstract

This proposal was developed to address the essential need for professional development for

teachers who instruct students with disabilities as a strategy to improve the use and integration of

technology in the classroom with the greater intent to contribute to learner-centered classrooms.

Technology use within the classroom has been shown to enhance learning among all students. Based on

the literature review, the needs assessment focused on the Coweta County school system and teachers

and special education students within the county. Students with disabilities now have the opportunity to

have more consistent access to technology. Coweta County was chosen as a pilot school system as the

county has implemented a one on one Chromebook initiative beginning on the 2016-2017 school year. All

Coweta County students in grades third through twelfth have an assigned Chromebook for their use

throughout the school year.

This professional development proposal provides 12 teachers a comprehensive 5-day workshop

followed by 2 follow-up sessions. The participants were chosen on a first come, first served basis.

Selected tools and technology were selected based on the program evaluators successful experience

applying those tools in the classroom. Participants will be allowed to have hands-on practice with

applications as well as the opportunity to view demonstrations. Program evaluation is guided by an

external education expert using a mixed methods approach to include teacher assessments, pre and post

education and student assessments, and finally the Georgia Milestones Assessment System (GMAS)

standard test scores. Success of this professional learning will be understood by teacher feedback and

successful implementation within the classroom.

2
 Introduction

From the viewpoint of a special education teacher, I feel that my district lacks greatly in

professional development for technology. Being a special education teacher in the regular education

classroom at 6th grade, I could easily agree that ADHD is running rampant around my grade level. When

one works closely with students, it is very easy to separate those that have ADHD and those students

who are just not putting forth the effort. It is a constant struggle everyday to work with those students who

truly cannot focus long enough to complete a math problem or read a short paragraph. As those are the

students who seem to be on my caseload, this is a very important subject to me. My county now has

Chromebooks available to every single student. There is no better time like the present to invest in

technology programs that will enhance student attention and ultimately their learning. Research has

shown that students with ADHD want to have access to technology and want to use applications to help

them learn (Bolic, 2013). We, as teachers, need to find the most motivating and effective ways that

allows students with ADHD to both stay engaged and learn at the same time. Just giving students a

Chrome book and typing an answer in Google Docs is not an effective nor engaging way for any student,

let alone, students with ADHD, to learn. Unfortunately, I feel that our county has not invested enough into

the effective use of the Chromebooks. If we do have any type of learning, it is on school level, and it

consists of other teachers teaching us. Many times, they only know how to use their technology for their

field. There also tends to be no enthusiasm for the application. It is more of, "Here's what's available.

Let me know if you need help using it". Just surfing the internet, there are so many programs out there

that will enhance engagement for students with ADHD. Unfortunately, it costs money, and teachers have

been left to make the programs work for the students. This grant proposal and professional learning

sessions hopes to effectively address this need.

Demonstrated Need

This grant proposal hopes to address the problem of the lack of technology use of 6th grade

special education students in the English/language arts classroom, especially those with Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder and learning disabilities. I found the Scandinavian study on computer use in

educational activities by students with ADHD to be very interesting and very eye opening. My conclusion

from this study is it shows that students with ADHD want to have more access to technology because

3
they ultimately believe it makes them more successful. The fact that students report lower access to

computers, but ultimately want the use of computers show there is a need not being met. Bolic (2013)

states that other studies have shown students with ADHD tend to respond very well to technology as it

helps improve focus, attention, on-task behavior, and increase educational performance in reading and

math. I believe if students really want to use technology, they work even harder with it, so it can remain in

the classroom.

Literature Synthesis

This is an obvious need for more technology use for students in special education. With the 1:1

assignment of chromebooks in my county, there is no better time than the present to invest in more

programs to authentically engage students. Students, with whom I work with, especially those with

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, enjoy the use of educational games on their chromebooks. The

following three journal articles help to support this cause. Time and time again research has found that,

when used correctly, technology benefits all students. These articles show that the investment in

applications and programs are well worth the money.

McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E. (2012) A Breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad

Facilitated Reading Improvement. TechTrends, 56(3), 20-28.

I think this case study confirms what we as educators already know, capturing a students

attention will increase learning and knowledge. Students with ADHD often feel out of control; they really

want to do well, but they just cannot help it. Being able to learn and control an app from an iPad helps

enable students to feel like they have some control. Having to sit in a chair, watch someone teach a

lesson, and then have to apply the new knowledge to worksheet, is all too often a difficult task for many

students. By having an iPad at arm reach, seeing graphics and being able to move, even just the

movement of their own fingers and arms, and interact with the questions, helps keep attention and makes

it easier for students with ADHD. In many cases, it can level the playing field. I think this is an excellent

example of how, in this generation of technology boom, computers and tablets need to be implemented

more often in the classroom. If it worked this quickly for one student, imagine would it could do for more.

4
Solomonidou, C., Garagouni-Areou, F., Zafiropoulou, M. (2004) Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) and Pupils with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms:

Do the Software and the Instruction Method Affect Their Behavior? Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 109-128.

This research shows what teachers across the country deal with everyday: the push from

administrators and officials to increase group work, cooperative learning, and movement in the classroom,

but the struggle for teachers to make it effective for everyone. Special education teachers see the

struggles students with ADHD deal with in group or pair situations. It is sometimes far more beneficial for

students to work by themselves on computers than force them to have to take turns; transitions like that

are sometimes very detrimental on specific students. There are two questionable flaws in this study that

should be considered. First, these students are not officially diagnosed with ADHD. There scores were

given to them by their teacher midterm through the school year. Half way through the year, some

teachers already have biases towards certain students, and their scores may reflect their opinion.

Second, only 13 students total were part of the study. While there is a lot of truth in the results, a wider

scale study should be conducted to verify or disprove the results.

Kleemans, T., Segers, E., Droop, M., & Wentink, H. (2011). WebQuests in special primary education:

Learning in a web-based environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 801-810.

I found this article to be very interesting. Although ADHD was not addressed in every article I

included, I am certain it still applies to those students and the classroom strategies for which they would

benefit. This article addresses how specific lessons need to be taught. This study showed that more

broad, less defined topics actually encourage students with disabilities to think out of the box without them

realizing they are working and applying information. It really goes against how many of my regular

education co-teachers teach special education students. Many times, they feel they need to dumb down

the material just because it is a co-taught class. I sound like a broken record when I tell them to keep the

material the same for everyone, and those others will step it up to keep up; of course, those that struggle

will be supported appropriately. This article proves that material, both web based and general material

used in the classroom, does not always need to be modified. Students will step up especially when

technology is involved.

5
Date Review

Bolic, V., Lindstrom, H., Thelin, N., Kjellberg, A., Hemmingsson, H. (2013) Computer use in Educational

Activities by Students with ADHD. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20, 357-364.

This study relates to my grant proposal as shows students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder want to have more access to technology; they ultimately believe it makes them more successful.

The fact that students report lower access to computers but want the use of computers show there is a

need not being met. Bolic states that other studies have shown students with ADHD tend to respond very

well to technology as it helps improve focus, attention, on-task behavior, and increase educational

performance in reading and math. (2013) I believe if students really want to use technology, they will

work even harder with it and be more engaged. Teachers need to be more educated in technology and

applications available to help not only students with ADHD but all students both in and out of special

education.

This study consisted of three groups of students: students with ADHD, students with physical

disabilities, and students within the general population with no known disabilities. The students chosen

were part of a larger national study, completed by the Swedish National Agency for Education,

investigating information and communication technology use in schools throughout central Sweden. Of

the 729 students with disabilities from the larger study, 254 students had a diagnosis of ADHD was

identified. Those students were sent questionnaires regarding computer usage in their schools. 132

questionnaires were returned, and those 132 were used in the study. The general population of students

came from the larger national survey and totaled 940 students, 478 were boys and 462 were girls. The

students with physical disabilities came from previously completed surveys of physical disabilities and

computer usage. The majority of students with ADHD and physical disabilities were boys averaging 14

years old. There were 15 closed-ended questions in the survey that related to computer usage and

educational activities, how often computers are used in the classroom, and the satisfaction students felt

from using the computers. Students ranked statements on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = never at all and 5 =

often.

With regards to the question, access to and location of computer use in educational activities,

there was no significant difference between students with physical disabilities and students with ADHD.

6
Bolic did state that it shows fewer students with ADHD (14% versus 27%) were provided with their own

computer in school when compared to students with physical disabilities. There was no difference in the

location of computers; all results showed similarities in locations of the classroom, computer room, and

library. When measuring types of educational activities students used the computer for, such as writing,

practice typing skills, search for information, make presentations, e-mailing with teachers, create

images/music/movies, and cooperate with students in other schools, students with ADHD showed limited

participation in four out of the seven activities. These activities included: search for information, make

presentations, e-mailing teachers, and create images/music/movies. This conclusion was found when

students with ADHD were compared to both students with physical disabilities and students in the general

population. The final category, satisfaction with computer use in educational activities, showed no

differences between students with ADHD and physical disabilities. However, students with ADHD want to

use computers more often in school and for more educational activities than students with physical

disabilities. Table 1 shows the possible variables associated with satisfaction with computer use in

educational activities among students with ADHD. The higher the odds ratio, the more likely that category

had an impact in whether or not students were happy with the amount of technology used. Finally, both

groups of students stated that their general population classmates use the computer more often in the

classroom than they did. According to Bolic, students with ADHD reported significantly lower use of a

computer for almost all educational activities compared to students with physical disabilities and student

without disabilities (2013).

Table 1:

7
 Variables associated with satisfaction with computer use in educational activities
among students with ADHD.
Odds Ratio
Access to a computer in school 9.6

Educational activities with a computer:

Writing 3.3

Exercise skills 1.8

Search for information on the Internet 2.9

Make presentations 3.2

Create images/music/movies 2.2

Cooperate with students in other schools 1.4

Solomonidou, C., Garagouni-Areou, F., Zafiropoulou, M. (2004) Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) and Pupils with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms:

Do the Software and the Instruction Method Affect Their Behavior? Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 109-128.

This data relates to the grant proposal as it shows the impact of technology with students with

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As much as there is a need for technology usage with students

who qualify for special education services, these advances in technology need to be applied accurately

and effectively. Pair work and cooperative group work is very much desired at my school. Group work,

as seen by some teachers, is dreaded; many students are off task and distracted. The results from

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Pupils with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder show exactly that concern. The students that were put in pairs, both with and without ADHD,

struggled significantly more to stay focused and complete their work than those who worked alone

(Solomonidou, 2004). When technology is used, it has to be used effectively and efficiently. When

students are using technology, it does not mean they are accurately processing and storing it in their

brains. A computer program needs to be effectively used. Just because the students have a computer in

front of them, and they are in a group, it does not necessarily mean it is effective. Classroom teachers

8
need to be very aware of this aspect, and administrator need to take some emphasis off of group work.

Teachers also do not need to use technology just to say they are using technology in their classroom.

They need to use it because it is effective for the students, not because it makes the teachers look good.

Nine students (6 boys, 3 girls) were accepted to participate in the study in this Greek study.

These students were not officially diagnosed with ADHD by a physician, but they were suspected of

having the disorder as teachers reported their observations on the rating scales. For the purpose of this

study, those students with suspected ADHD were considered to actually have the diagnosis. Four other

students, three boys and one girl, without ADHD symptoms were also selected to participate. The

students met with a researcher once a week for six weeks for videotaped sessions. At each session,

students worked on various computer programs pertaining to art, history/physics/geography 1, geography

2, and mathematics. According to Solomondou (2004), data analysis was comprised of careful

observation of videotaped activities, during which the behavior of each pupil was recorded. Behavior

components, such as reading the text carefully, fidgeting or being distracted while reading the text,

fidgeting or being distracted while the partner was using the mouse or keyboard, were rated on a 3-point

scale: Not at all (1), Moderately (2), and Very Much (3).

Ultimately, 598 measurements, 46 for each student, were taken during the processes of reading

texts, watching video games and pictures, listening to narration items, solving problems, conducting

experiments, drawing on a program, HyperStudio, and recording data on Excel. With regards to the type

of software program students used, students with ADHD were more kinetic and fidgety than students with

no attention problems. More specifically, the longer the reading text, a history text measuring 580 words

for example, the more off task the students were compared to students without attention problems. It was

observed that students with ADHD complained more often when reading and could not seem to sit still.

The others students without ADHD concentrated longer and did not complain. However, when watching

picture explanations, videos, and listening to narration, there was no difference in attention and

movement between the two groups. With regards to working in pairs or alone, there were notable

differences. The students with both ADHD and without ADHD struggled much more to stay focused and

complete work when in pairs. Those that worked alone in both groups stayed focused and concentrated

better and more efficiently for all activities. Students in both groups that were working in pairs were

9
discussed irrelevant information, looked out the window, or stared at the ceiling. When they students had

to take turns using the computer with their partners, the students with ADHD were more severely affected

by distractibility by constantly moving their hands and feet and touching their partner. However, when it

was the students with ADHDs turn to use the computer, his or her distractibility improved greatly and he

or she was able to refocus. As soon as the student stopped using the computer, the inattention and

distractibility increased once again.

Goals and Objectives

After reviewing the data review and recognizing the need for more technology assistance for

students with disabilities, goals and objectives have been developed to create a useful professional

learning session for all teachers. Providing technology enhanced professional development and support

for teachers contributes to the solutions necessary to establish learner-centered classrooms in the current

information society (An & Reigeluth 2012). Three goals of the professional learning session with

measureable objectives of this proposal are as follows:

Goal 1 - New Content - By the end of this professional development, teachers will increase their

knowledge of beneficial computer applications available to students with exceptionalities.

Objective 1 - To improve professional development initiatives, 12 teachers representing all teachers within

Coweta County will engage in technology enhancement training for students with disabilities in education

to improve teaching practices and student achievement on standard test scores.

Goal 2 - Technology Integration Practice - At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will increase

the amount of time students with special needs spend engaged in 1:1 computer time.

Objective 2 - To reach this goal, participants will demonstrate an increased use of technology as

measured by lesson plans to include at least 1 one to one activity each week. Teachers will receive a list

of beneficial applications and receive immediate and accurate feedback to help understanding of

applications.

Goal 3 - Innovative Teaching - By the end of the 2018 school year, teachers will able to show an increase

in students with exceptionalities' test scores on material that used the integration of technology.

10
Objective 3 - Program participants will use technology in the classroom at least once per week, will

administer Pre and post tests to student that will be given during the time period to measure growth, and

all students will have access to 1:1 technology each time technology is used.

Concept Chart #1:

Plan of Operations

Within this strategic professional development plan, 12 teachers will engage in several site

based, professional development sessions to increase technology involvement for students with

disabilities within the classroom. The professional development sessions will provide participants with

strategies and applications that they can use to plan technology-rich lessons that are engaging in order to

increase students with disabilities achievement levels. Facilitators will use best teaching practice

11
strategies to delivery content specific information to participants about different applications that will

increase student engagement and create a more student-centered classroom.

Day 1: During the first day of training, teachers will learn about current research that shows both the

benefits and some of the downfalls of using technology with students with disabilities. This will take place

as a whole group situation. Teachers will gain a deeper understanding of current research results. They

will learn about the positives and negatives of using technology for students with disabilities. Finally,

teachers will learn about different technological applications available to students.

Day 2: The second day of training consists of becoming familiar with Moovly.com and learning how to

create videos in the classroom. Teachers will learn about the benefits of using video in their classrooms.

They will learn how to create a lesson based video using Moovly. This will consist of whole group and

individual exercises. Teachers will learn how to create a Moovly based lesson. At the end of this session,

teachers will be able to support students with different learning styles using videos.

Day 3: Game day will be the title of day 3. Specifically, teachers will learn about Quizlet, Quizlet Live, and

Kahoot! They will learn about the benefits of using interactive games to enhance instruction. Participants

will learn how to create and effectively apply three of the most popular applications in both whole group

and individual sessions. Ultimately, teachers will understand the importance of using gaming as a way to

review material. They will create a quizlet and kahoot game based on their subject knowledge. Finally,

teachers will understand how Quizlet Live works and play a group game.

Day 4: Day 4 of the session consists of learning about Pitkochart and benefits of using infographics in the

classroom. Teachers will learn the benefits of using infographics to enhance instruction. They will learn

how to create their own infographic based on their area of expertise during whole group and individual

sessions. Teachers will learn how to use infographics as a visual teaching tool in the classroom. It is

intended that teachers will learn how to use infographics as an assessment tool.

Day 5: For the final day of the week long professional learning, teachers will learn how to effectively

update lesson plans to reflect the integration of technology. Teachers will receive support for recreating

lessons. They will learn how to change lessons they already use to integrate the newly learned

applications. This will take place in whole group, small group, and individual practice sessions. Teachers

will review lessons plans and learn how to integrate at least one application a week. In small groups,

12
participants will collaborate with each other to assist with ideas. Ultimately, teachers will create one

lesson plan that incorporates one application.

Follow-up Meeting #1: For this first follow-up session, it will be structured as a Think/Pair/Share help

session. Teachers will receive support for any questions they may have. Although the beginning will

consist of whole group instruction, they will share one of their newly created applications with a small

group. Teachers will share one teacher create application and one student created application.

Follow-up Meeting #2: Testing Results will be the focus of the second follow-up session. In a whole

group situation, teachers will bring pre and post test results, before and after new technology integration,

and discuss changes. Teachers will share pre and post test results using one technology application they

integrated. Teachers who had the largest testing gains in their class will share their strategies.

Follow-up Meeting #3: For the final session in this professional learning series, Teacher Driven Question

and Answer Session will be the primary focus. Beginning with whole group, Support will be given to

teachers who have encountered issues. Teachers with advanced technology knowledge will share useful

applications they use with small groups. Teachers will learn additional technology applications based on

teacher survey. They will have any additional questions answered. Finally, teachers will collaborate with

one another to find out what has worked best for each other.

13
Plan of Operations - Schedule

Concept Chart #2:

Evaluation Plan

The best way that I would know if my professional learning was a success would be if the

participants continued to use the new programs months after the programs were taught. It is great to be

able to learn a new piece of technology. However, with so many requirements of classroom teachers

these days, the ability to stay on top of new technology is difficult. If months down the road my

participants are still using the ideas in the classroom, then I would consider the professional learning

successful. If the teachers could show an increase in grades among their students because of the

technology, then, of course, the program would be successful. If the professional learning resulted in few

if any, participants using the ideas months or even weeks later, then I would not think it was beneficial and

14
participant feedback would be even more important. There are many formative evaluations I plan on

using throughout the professional learning. Some are as follows:

3 Minute Pause - Periodically stopping the sessions for 3 minutes for participants to write down

any questions or concerns about the material that they may not want to ask aloud.
Sticky Note Challenge - Open and close professional learning by having participants write any

prior knowledge/gained knowledge that they have.

3-2-1 - Possible ideas include: 3 things you found out, 2 interesting things, 1 question you still

have; 3 keywords, 2 new ideas, 1 thought to think about.

Since summative evaluations are a cumulative display of results over a period of time, I would give a

survey at the end of the 5-day session, at the end of the third day follow up, and finally a year later. In

order to see this professional learning as a success, I would want to see participants using the new

information months after the sessions. I would also like to see pre and post test scores from participants

students. Pre-tests would be before they used the new technology with their students and post would be

afterward if it is material that is appropriate to be scored that way.

Goal 1 - By the end of this professional development, teachers will increase their knowledge of beneficial

computer applications available to students with exceptionalities.

Qualitative: Open-ended questioning about prior and post knowledge of available programs.

Quantitative: Survey with yes or no questioning whether programs have been used in the classroom.

Goal 2 - At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will increase the amount of time students with

special needs spend engaged in 1:1 computer time.

Qualitative: Question and answer session to understand why technology is or is not used in the

classroom.

Quantitative: Survey asking how much time computer applications on used in the classroom.

Goal 3 - By the end of the 2018 school year, teachers will able to show an increase in students with

exceptionalities' test scores on material that used the integration of technology.

Qualitative: Exit interviews with participants to discuss pros and cons of applications after one year.

Quantitative: Pre and post test scores on topics that used the integration of the applications after one

year.

Concept Map #3:

15
External Evaluator

As for an external evaluator, I would choose our In School Coordinator, Ms. Toni Smith. She is

very well versed in both technology and the needs of students in special education. Ms. Smith hold both

a bachelors degree and Masters degree in Education. She possesses great knowledge and experience

in assessing programs involving both economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities at the

middle school level. She also enjoys working with data and looking for both positive and negative trends.

I believe that her expertise in both areas would be very beneficial to provide the most unbiased evaluation

of the sessions.

Process Evaluation

16
 Two types of evaluations or evaluation processes, as related to impactful evaluations, are

outcome evaluations and process evaluation. To clearly understand the differences between the two,

Deborah Linnell (2014), Director of Programs at Third Sector New England, a nonprofit philanthropy

group, suggests that evaluations evaluate the change produced by a program. This understanding will

allow answers to research questions, which will inform if activities are effective and aligned to the program

goals. It serves as a return of investment analysis for stakeholders. Based on her work, Linnell (2014)

goes further to state the importance of evaluating the process of a program. Process evaluations help

stakeholders see how a program outcome or impact was achieved. The focus of a process evaluation is

on the types and quantities of services delivered, the beneficiaries of those services, the resources used

to deliver the services, the practical problems encountered, and the ways such problems were resolved.

Outcomes Evaluation

The outcome evaluation will help determine if the goal to improve technology integration with

students with disabilities occurred in the classroom as a result of the professional development sessions.

The need to revisit and support the momentum of classroom practices will determine if the term goals set

forth are attained. Outcome will be seen as an increase in the use of technology with students with

disabilities over the timeframe of year following the professional development sessions.

Partnership

Integration of technology for teaching and learning requires a network of systems across state,

district, and classroom systems. Collaborative attention to these relationships ensures participation at all

levels and process improvement strategies which are critical to sustainability over time (Anthony, 2012).

These partnerships establish a framework for sharing, feedback, and review.

Partners

Partners in the effective technology integration conference will be open to all in-school

coordinators at all grade levels from the Coweta County School district. Administrators from all schools

will also be invited to attend. Depending on the number of special education teachers attending, the

professional learning may be opened to all teachers in the county with an interest in attracting

English/Language arts teachers. The session will be supported by the system superintendent as well as

representatives as well as special education administrators from Coweta County School's central office.

17
All stakeholders will receive training on effective technology integration techniques and the methods

utilized to implement these strategies into the classroom.

Participant Recruitment

To ensure transparency and equitable participation across the system, a letter of invitation will be

submitted to all projected administrators, partners, teachers, and participants at least 90 days prior to the

scheduled session. The assumption is that in-school coordinators will participant in the identification of

additional partners and participants. The letter will outline the goals and objectives, curriculum, faculty,

timeline and evaluation plans. As commitments from participants are received, the faculty will reach out

for collaboration and professional conversations.

Conclusion

This professional development program serves to provide education and integration of technology

for students with disabilities into the classroom with the overarching intent to engage the student

population and improve test scores when measured by end of year standard test scores. Activities are

focused on a 5-day summer visual media workshop for 12 participating teachers; 2 additional follow-up

sessions in the fall; data collection, evaluation and analysis which will culminate with the Georgia

Milestones Assessment System (GMAS) standard test scores at end of year; and finally reports to the

Coweta County School System administration, partners, and participants. With successful implementation

of this program, I anticipate using this data to assist other school districts with a documented need for

professional development in technology to support learner centered education in special education.

Appendix A: Budget Summary

18
Detailed budget is submitted as a separate document.

Appendix B: Budget Narrative

19
A. Personnel: $13,300.00

Emma Hoerger will serve as Project Director. The responsibilities for Mrs. Hoerger will be

equivalent to 6 weeks of full time work and the grant proposal request to pay the project manager $5,000.

The support staff will consist of 2 individuals, Kelly Ryan and Carol Mathis, who will receive a payment of

$300 per day (5 days of professional development plus 2 days of follow up). Support staff will receive an

additional $300 for a day of preparation for their roles as project facilitators. Each support staff member

will receive a total of $2,400 for a total cost of $4,800 for all support staff members. The external

evaluator, Ms. Toni Smith, will receive $3,500 and will be responsible for a comprehensive evaluation of

the professional development. She will also gather data from the participants over the course of the

school year to quantify the effectiveness of the professional development.

B. Fringe Benefits--$850.00

In addition to salaries, fringe benefits are also provided for the project director and external

evaluator. Fringe benefits will total 10% of the cost of each person for a total $850.

C. Participants Cost: $6,000.00

All training participants will receive $500 for completing the professional development. Note:

participants must complete each of the 5 days of professional development to receive the $500 stipend. If

all participants complete the training the budget includes 12 participants at a cost of $500 for a total of

$6,000.

D. Support Personnel: $0.00

There is no support personal cost.

E. Travel: $2,045.00

The expenses for travel to the GAETC Conference in Atlanta will include the following:

a $200 registration fee for each of the 5 participants including myself: $1,000
Food will cost $50 per day for each participant totaling $250.
Travel from the Coweta County area would be approximately 60 mile trip per participant: for the 3

days of the conference at $0.53 per mile for a total of $159 per participant or $795 total.

F. Additional Cost: $765.00

20
 Lunch and drinks will be provided for all 12 participants of the professional development for 5

days at a cost of $9 per day and a total of $540. All staff and the external evaluator will receive lunch and

drinks as well. Lunch and drinks for 3 staff members and 1 external evaluator will be $9 per day for 5 days

and a total of $225. The total for lunch and drinks for all participants, staff and external evaluator will be

$765.

G. Evaluation/Supplies: $81.51

All participants and external evaluator will receive a flash drive containing all materials and

resources used during the professional development. Each flash drive costs $6.27 and 13 will be provided

to participants and the external evaluator for a total of $81.51.

H. Indirect Cost: $1,903.72

The indirect costs will cover the use of and maintenance of Lee Middle School as it will be used to

host the professional development. The indirect costs are calculated as 8% of the total cost. The total cost

equals $23,796.51, 8% of this total equals $1,903.72.

Appendix C: Capacity

21
 Emma Hoerger is a special education teacher in Coweta County. Over her 12-year career, she

has taught all subjects at the middle school level. Emma received her Bachelors degree in criminology

and her Masters in Special Education from the George Mason University. Emma is currently working to

complete an Ed.S in Instructional Technology from the University of West Georgia.

Emma will have many responsibilities as the project director. Emma will be responsible for recruiting

any potential clients to take part in the professional development. As well, she will need to secure a facility

and confirm dates for the professional development as well as follow-up sessions. She will have the task

of training all support staff to ensure that they are well-equipped to deliver quality and effective direction

during the professional development. As project director, she will serve as a primary teacher during the

duration of the training. Finally, Emma must secure the necessary funds to make the professional

development financially possible.

Kelly Ryan is a 6th grade special education teacher in Coweta County. Of her 10 years in the

classroom, she has taught a in a Title 1 school. April is also certified as a Media Specialist. April received

her undergraduate degree in English from Georgia Southern University. She completed her coursework in

the fall of 2015 with Ed.S in Instructional Technology from University of Southern Florida.

As a project facilitator, Kellys primary responsibility will be to assist participants with any

questions or concerns that arise during the professional development and follow-up sessions. Some of

her more specific responsibilities are making sure that all necessary adjustments are made to the

curriculum based on any unforeseen time constraints or the level of technology competencies of our

participants. Kelly will handle the opening activities each day during the duration of the professional

development. She will also serve as the primary resource for the participants in terms of how teachers

can best use ideas from the professional development into their instructional practices.

Carol Mathis is a special education math and science teacher in Coweta County. Over her 23-

year career, she has taught at the elementary, middle and high school levels. She is also certified in math,

science, social studies and special education. Carol received her Bachelors degree in secondary

education and her Masters in Middle Grade Education from the University of West Georgia. As an

educational leader, she had the opportunity to be a presenter on the topic of Collaborative Instruction,

22
for new teachers orientation for Clayton County School System. Carol completed and earned her Ed.S in

Instructional Technology from the University of West Georgia in the Fall of 2016.

Carols primary responsibility will be to assist participants with any questions or concerns that

arise during the professional development and follow-up sessions. Some of her more specific

responsibilities are to serve as the primary resource for reading instruction, while also leading the

feedback and reflection portion of the training each day. Carol will also collect notes, questions and

artifacts to present to the team at the end of each daily session. Finally, Carol will lead a team meeting to

discuss the progress that is being made and how the team can ensure that the participants reach the

goals and objectives that were laid out for the professional development.

Lee Middle School is governed by the Coweta County School System. The school is located at 370

Willis Road, Sharpsburg, Georgia, providing ease of access to all participants. The school has the

capacity to host the professional development program with computers and/or Chromebooks available to

all participants. Materials and courtesy items will be provided by the host facility.

23
 Appendix D: Data Collection Instrument

Participant Pre-assessment Post-Assessment Difference

References

An, Y. & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12

teachers beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher

Education, 28(2), 54-62. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ960151

Anthony, A.B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system

interactions and their Influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in

24
 Education, 44(4), 335356. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976472.pdf

Bolic, V., Lindstrom, H., Thelin, N., Kjellberg, A., Hemmingsson, H. (2013) Computer use in Educational

Activities by Students with ADHD. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20, 357-364.

Kleemans, T., Segers, E., Droop, M., & Wentink, H. (2011). WebQuests in special primary education:

Learning in a web-based environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 801-810.

McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E. (2012) A Breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad

Facilitated Reading Improvement. TechTrends, 56(3), 20-28.

Linnell, D. (2014, February 13). Process evaluation vs. outcome evaluation [Web log post]. Retrieved April

20, 2017, from http://tsne.org/blog/process-evaluation-vs-outcome-evaluation

Solomonidou, C., Garagouni-Areou, F., Zafiropoulou, M. (2004) Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) and Pupils with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms:

Do the Software and the Instruction Method Affect Their Behavior? Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 109-128.

25