Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education

ISSN: 0962-029X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe19

What Drives Successful Technology Planning?

Bob Hoffman

To cite this article: Bob Hoffman (1996) What Drives Successful Technology Planning?, Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5:1-2, 43-55, DOI: 10.1080/0962029960050106

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0962029960050106

Published online: 13 Nov 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1312

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe19
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 5, Nos 1/2, 1996

What Drives Successful Technology Planning?

BOB HOFFMAN
San Diego State University, USA

ABSTRACT Providing computers and in-servicing staff is not enough to get

teachers and students using technology for teaching and learning. Schools of
teacher education can prepare teachers better by helping college and
university education faculty model technology use throughout the teacher
credentialing curriculum. Another approach is to help teachers construct a
model for identifying and developing factors that will support their own
technology initiatives. The literature on technology integration reveals eight
success factors for schools attempting to help teachers adopt technology in
their classrooms. This article examines those success factors and looks at
strategies for implementing them.

Introduction
One of the many lessons learned from the past two decades of using
computers in American schools is that dropping computers into classrooms
and dipping teachers in technology training courses or workshops is simply
not an effective way to get teachers and students using technology for
teaching and learning. Dropping and dipping doesn't do it.
Many American states require pre-service teachers to take a course in
using technology in the classroom. At San Diego State University we call ours
Technologies for Teachers. Such courses can help ensure at least minimal
computer literacy. Good courses even help teachers develop specific skills and
identify hardware, software and strategies they will be able to use for
classroom management and for teaching and learning. Great courses strive to
help beginning teachers create a vision for their future classroom which
includes using technology as a tool for accomplishing their and their
students' objectives. But the best 20-week course in using classroom
technology will be of little value when the new teacher suddenly finds her or
himself in a classroom with antiquated, defunct, or non-existent computer
hardware and software.

43
BOB HOFFMAN

How can schools of teacher education prepare new and experienced

teachers alike to build the support they need for using technology once they
are out in the trenches? There are several approaches worth considering. One
is the strategy described by Brunner (1992). It involves helping college of
education faculty to use technology, not just in an isolated technology course,
but throughout the teacher credentialing curriculum. By modeling the use of
technology themselves and by demonstrating domain- and method-specific
strategies that utilize computers and video, these faculty help pre-service
teachers construct schemas of learning and of classroom culture that include
technology in an integral, instrumental role.
Another approach to preparing pre- and in-service teachers for the
realities of school technology is to help them construct a model for
identifying and developing factors that will support their initiatives. So the
teacher who, having diligently prepared for the information superhighway,
finds instead a technological cow path, will be prepared to usefully analyze
the situation and gather the support they need to forge ahead.
This approach really involves understanding the idea of needs
assessment as it relates to technology integration. The School Technology
Planner (Hoffman and Rossett, in press) is an automated tool which serves as
an EPSS (Electronic Performance Support System) for helping teachers
analyze barriers to technology integration and develop solution systems to
address those barriers. It is a kind of digital job aid for helping teachers or
other technology leaders develop effective technology" use plans. At the same
time, it serves a coaching or mentoring role for 'helping teachers think
through the issues and dialog with those whose support they need.

Eight Success Factors

The North American literature on technology integration reveals a number of
success factors for schools attempting to help teachers adopt technology in
their classrooms. For the sake of this discussion, we have categorized those
success factors as:
• Administrative Support
• Staff Development and Technical Support
• Availability of Technology
• Technology Use Plan
• Technology Coordinator
• Facilities and Maintenance
• Assessment
• Broad participation
Let's look at each of these success factors individually. •

44
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

Administrative Support
For technology integration to succeed on any scale, even in the individual
teacher's classroom, it must have strong support from the school board and
from district and school site administrators (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993;
Vitchoff, 1989). There are several reasons for this. First, as Becker (1992)
points out, teachers begin using technology both because they choose to and
because they perceive they are expected to do so by their organization. If
they are to advance very far they must choose to do it on their own, but
expectation is important in the beginning.
Second, administrators can provide some of the incentives which
teachers need to get started and continue integrating technology in their
classrooms. Hadley & Sheingold (1993) note the importance of boosting
teachers' self-esteem by supplying recognition, advancement, development,
and financial rewards, resources which are, in most schools and districts, the
purview of administrators.
Both school and district administrators can seek individuals with
educational technology skills for hiring and promotion within the district
(Garbosky, 1994). They can create new 'technology-friendly' job titles (Glenn,
1993). They can encourage conference and workshop attendance by
providing release time and pay for training (Glenn, 1993; Vitchoff, 1989).
Third, in their role as instructional leaders, they can help motivate
teachers to adopt technology by framing it in the context of school
restructuring, imbedding it in a common content and tying it to a set of
common goals (Wiburg, 1991; Sheingold, 1991; Davis, 1991; Russell et al,
1994).
Fourth, administrators and board members have the responsibility to
allocate adequate resources for technology and staff development which is a
key to successful technology integration (Vitchoff, 1989; Mahmood & Hirt,
1992).
Finally, the literature indicates that schools with greater district
involvement in decision-making about computers have more computer-using
teachers, because districts typically provide more staff development activities
than do individual sites (Becker, 1992). This is related to the role of the
technology coordinator (see below).
Why would administrators want to encourage technology integration in
the first place? The principal reason has to do with school reform and
restructuring. Where administrators and board members have an interest in
both instructional reform and restructuring of school governance, technology
integration may offer assistance.
There is a claim in the literature, for instance, that technology
integration leads to changes in pedagogy, to better ways of teaching and
learning, which in turn supports restructuring (Brunner, 1992; Honey &

45
BOB HOFFMAN
Moeller, 1990). Hoffman (1996) found that teachers who used more
technology also tended to use more co-operative learning, individualized
instruction, complex problem solving, and interdisciplinary instruction, and
do less lecturing in their classrooms.
How can school technology leaders get administrators and board
members involved? Like anyone else, administrators and board members
need to be informed about the issues. Technology leaders can raise
awareness with administrators and school boards - through presentations for
example (Garbosky, 1994). They can try to educate the school superintendent,
business administrator, and other administrators and decision makers about
computer uses in education - including curriculum; district, site, and
classroom management; use of computers by support staff; and how to use
computers themselves.
Administrators and board members need to know that the investment
probably won't pay off in immediate gains in standardized test scores, and
that they must be prepared to support and guide teachers who experiment
with technology integration. They must understand it takes a long time even
for master teachers to become comfortable with technology.
They need to be prepared to tolerate and direct some transitional
upheaval as teachers move to an emphasis on project-centered collaborative
work. They may need to revise scheduling and programming to meet the
need for greater flexibility. They must find ways to showcase and support
efforts of participating teachers. They must manage a growing inventory of
hardware and software, while allowing teachers flexibility to reconfigure it
and try it in new ways (Brunner, 1992).
More importantly, the literature recommends that administrators and
board members will be more supportive if they are technology users
themselves. To accomplish this, provide and encourage them to attend
workshops on how to use spreadsheets for budgets, graphics and
presentation programs to help them reach out to community and involve
parents, and software tools to manage school data. Discuss research findings
to prepare them to support teachers' use of technology in the classroom
(Brunner, 1992; Garbosky, 1994; Vitchoff, 1989).

Staff Development and Technical Support

Technology complicates teaching. Without adequate support no one can be
expected to suddenly come to terms with what is, in many ways, an entirely
new paradigm of instruction (Davis, 1991). Day-to-day help with problems of
time, space, supervision, operations, and access must also be addressed
(Hadley & Sheingold, 1993).
Accomplishing successful technology integration in schools requires
both staff development and technical support Together they provide the

46
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

skills and knowledge that teachers need to begin and continue using
technology in their classrooms.
An initial question might be "How do teachers actually learn to use new
technologies?" Hadley & Sheingold (1993) asked that question and found
that successful integrators picked up their new skills from (in descending
order): 1. self-study; 2. conferences and workshops on their own time; 3.
taking courses at local colleges; 4. courses offered by their district (in-service);
5. taking courses offered at their school site (in-service); 6. courses in
graduate or undergraduate college and university training; 7. courses offered
by the district (not in-service); 8. instruction from other teachers; and 9.
instruction on site by consultants.
With respect to organizing in-service or other technology workshops,
one of the big questions is "How much do we need and how should we
schedule it?" There is consistent agreement in the technology integration
literature that extended and comprehensive - usually defined as five to six
years - staff development is required (Bruder, 1989; Bruder, 1991; Brunner,
1992; Collins, 1991; Dwyer et al, 1991; Elmer-Dewitt, 1991; Hadley &
Sheingold, 1993; Mahmood & Hirt, 1992; Nelson et al, 1991; Scrogan, 1989;
Vitchoff, 1989; Walters, 1992).
Beyond that, however, there is a great deal of variety in
recommendations as to how this extended commitment should be
implemented. Several authors favor a scheme of weekly separate hardware
and software instruction, plus at least 45 minutes a week for independent
practice (Nelson et al, 1991; Vitchoff, 1989; Walters, 1992). The latter
provides time for planning, implementation, testing, modifying, and assessing
integration (Collins, 1991).
Glenn (1993) proposes a kind of 'pyramid marketing' approach. He
counsels providing technology and training to a select group of teachers in
each building each year, and encouraging them to train other teachers. This
idea is echoed by Russell et al (1994), who recommend extensive training for
a select few. They propose six one-day workshops distributed throughout the
academic year for a dozen teachers, to demonstrate strategies for integration
of emerging technologies and learning techniques. The workshops would
include hand-outs to facilitate classroom integration.
Others counsel free after-school in-service on general technology topics
such as word processing, multimedia, spreadsheets and databases, and
telecommunications, which would be open to teachers, administrators,
support staff, parents, cafeteria staff - anyone willing to come and learn.
These workshops can be organized in small increments ("open file," "enter
text," "save," and "retrieve") with enough time - a couple weeks, for example
— between sessions to allow for individual practice (Paul, 1994).
This raises the issue of exactly "What should be included in the content
for staff development efforts?" Vitchoff (1989) lists several priorities,
including: 1. how teachers can use technology as productivity tools; 2. how to

47
BOB HOFFMAN
integrate technology into individual classroom environments; and 3. how to
make wise decisions for purchasing and using technology.
Paul (1994) encourages technology leaders to structure individual
in-services with very specific curricular focus and application, such as "writing
across the curriculum."
Walters (1992) emphasizes giving teachers opportunities to examine
and use computer programs that develop deductive reasoning and problem
solving skills. He suggests providing experiences with tools for constructing
teacher-made tests; setting up drill and practice exercises; researching,
organizing, and reporting information (spreadsheets, databases, and word
processing); and promoting independent learning.
Finally, whatever content is settled on, it is important to structure any
training to meet the personal interests or needs of individual teachers
(Vitchoff, 1989) This is important because, as noted above, teachers start
using technology partly because it is expected of them by administrators, but
they will continue developing their skills only because they wish to (Becker,
1992).
What do teachers perceive as ways that technology might meet their
personal interests or needs? Hadley & Sheingold (1993) mention:
1. expanding students' learning, experience, capacities, and productivity;
2. helping teachers teach more effectively; 3. increasing interest in, applying,
and reinforcing subject matter; and 4. motivating learning through fun,
relevance, reinforcement, and success. These can be powerful motivators for
teachers to want to learn more about how to use technology in the
classroom.
The first two of these motivators can be promoted by using staff
development to help teachers find appropriate and meaningful use of
computer applications relative to the characteristics of their students and to
their overall style of instructional organization and management (Walters,
1992).
Who should organize staff development? Any entity can usefully provide
in-service activities, but districts may get the most for their money. Becker
(1992) did a study comparing top-down and bottom-up approaches to
technology integration. One of the interesting things he found was that
schools with three or more district-provided training activities had a third
more computer users, on average, than those with only one or two activities,
and 50% more than those with no district-led training.
But all staff development, as noted above, does not need to be provided
within the school or district itself. Many colleges and universities, for
example, offer courses in integrating computers into the classroom (Vitchoff,
1989). Additionally, districts or schools can provide opportunities for teachers
to attend off-site or out-ofdistrict conferences and workshops (Hadley &
Sheingold, 1993).

48
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

Another useful adjunct to formal staff development is to provide

opportunities for teachers to make half day visitations, either within or
outside of the school or district, to other teachers who are successfully using
technology in their classrooms (Walters, 1992).
Technical support may be organized from (in order of probable
importance) 1. other teachers; 2. a school technology coordinator; 3. a
district computer co-ordinator; 4. outside consultants; 5. organized groups of
teachers; 6. software company representatives; and 7. hardware company
representatives (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Vitchoff, 1989).
With respect to teachers learning from other teachers and from the
school or district technology co-ordinator, Russell et al (1994) remind
technology leaders that they should not overlook opportunities to assist
beginning teachers with technology instruction in their own classrooms.
Elmer-Dewitt (1991) recommends encouraging teachers to serve as coaches
and facilitators for other teachers.
Organized groups of teachers can sometimes provide the kind of
detailed help that many beginning technology teachers will need. Garbosky
(1994) recommends promoting networking among computer using educators
as one means of providing such support Fulton (1988) particularly
recommends helping beginning teachers tie in to computer network
resources, connecting with more experienced teachers who may be able to
assist them in organizing the use of technology in their own curriculum.
In light of the finding that most technology integration skills and
knowledge come from self study (Hadley & Sheingokl, 1993), it might
behoove technology leaders to provide circumstances which afford
opportunities for such study. Walters (1992) recommends providing
additional time and opportunities for teachers to simply sit down and review
and evaluate selected computer software having to do with teacher
productivity and student learning.
Providing ready access to literature related to use of technology for
teaching and learning (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Walters, 1992) can also
promote self study.
This leads naturally to another important factor, making enough
technology available to teachers, administrators, and staff.

Availability of Technology
Having enough technology for students and teachers may at first blush
appear too obvious to mention, but, in fact, it is an important element to
consider when attempting to promote technology integration. Hoffman
(1996) found that teachers who were not using technology in their
classrooms cited lack of access as the most important factor. There are issues
of quantity, quality, and access.

49
BOB HOFFMAN
In terms of quantity, enough computers should be available to provide
both training and practice time for teachers (Vitchoff, 1989). As mentioned
above, this includes time to review and select software and develop lesson
plans. Vitchoff cautions that technology leaders should strive to provide
hardware and software that meets teacher and administrator needs, not
require the teachers and administrators to adapt to the needs of the
technology. This points to the necessity for a thorough needs analysis before
purchasing technology.
Another important issue is access to computers by students. While
nearly all schools claim that students have access to computers in their
classrooms, the actual number of computers is usually small, and the ratio of
computers to students quite low. This severely limits the amount of time any
individual student has access to a computer.
These numbers should be tempered, however, by understanding how
computers can and, some would argue, should be used in classrooms. David
Dockterman (1991) represents a school of thought that maintains that it is
not necessary to have a large computer to student ratio. There are
alternatives such as the 'one computer classroom,' in which the single
computer sits on the teacher's desk and is used as a teacher productivity tool,
a presentation tool, a classroom discussion generator, and a stimulus and tool
for managing co-operative learning. With appropriate software and teaching
strategies, even a single computer per classroom would be adequate.
With respect to quality, it is important to provide good, adaptable,
uncomplicated hardware and software as well as information about how to
use it (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993). The emphasis here is on simplicity. If
equipment and software is too complicated, many teachers will find it difficult
to justify the overhead involved in learning to useit.
Access is a more difficult issue. Schools and districts differ in the extent
to which they favor computer centralization in labs versus computers
distributed in classrooms. In any event, easy access to a computer will greatly
reduce the barriers to using it. Becker (1992) recommends, where necessary,
realigning policies affecting access and utilization of hardware and software.
Technology leaders and administrators can review policies on how computers
should be used, where they should be used, and who may use them. This
includes policies that deal with the locus of training, support and
encouragement.
One suggestion found more than once in the literature is to encourage
teachers to use computers at home (Collins, 1991; Paul, 1994). One way to
promote this is to review any policy which relates to school property being
loaned to faculty (Vitchoff, 1989).

50
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

Technology Use Plan

We have noted above the value of administrative support for technology
integration. One way to formalize this support, along with the other
supportive factors described here, is to develop a technology use plan. Such
plans are frequently requirements of technology grants, and are well worth
the trouble and time they may take to put together.
A number of authors recommend development of a long range
(3-5-year) technology integration plan which includes commitment to staff
development together with ongoing development of emerging technology and
evaluation (Paul, 1994; Russell et al, 1994; Vitchoff, 1989).

Technology Co-ordinator
Leadership is a vital factor in any effort at organizational change. We have
seen how important administrative support can be to foster technology
integration. The literature is also consistent in recommending the designation
of a district computer or technology co-ordinator.
The technology co-ordinator is a specialist staff person whose principle
role is to conduct training for teachers and aids. Studies have shown that the
influence of a co-ordinator leads to greater use of computers, the use of more
'higher order thinking skills' software, and greater use of computers as tools
in academic activities rather than merely as drill and practice. A large number
of underutilized masters and doctoral degree students in educational
technology may be called on (Vitchoff, 1989; Becker, 1992; Paul, 1994;
Garbosky, 1994) to act as technology coordinators.
The technology co-ordinator can also more easily pursue purposeful
development to obtain funds for further implementing technology than can
an individual teacher (Russell et al, 1994). The development of the
technology use plan is often guided by the technology co-ordinator.
The technology co-ordinator can help boost teacher confidence and
motivation by providing a high level of technical support (Paul, 1994).
Is it more useful to have a district or school site technology
co-ordinator? As Becker's (1992) study indicates, district personnel and policy
involvement leads to greater support from outside agents with respect to
technical expertise, teacher training, and instructional support. Schools with
district involvement are also more likely to have more up-to-date and
powerful computers, and have their computers networked.
For secondary schools, greater district-level decision making results in
greater use of computers for occupationally-related (business and industrial
arts) uses. Interestingly, both district- and school-level decision making is
associated with greater use of 'higher-order' thinking skills software

51
BOB HOFFMAN

(databases, spreadsheets, music composition, etc.), than is individual teacher

decision making (Becker, 1992).

Facilities and Maintenance

Probably the most overlooked success factor for technology integration, the
inclusion of facilities and maintenance personnel in planning for technology
integration, is mentioned only in passing in the literature. Even so,
experienced practitioners caution that this issue is ignored at peril. Broken
equipment, slow repairs, and inadequate facilities spell disaster for technology
integration.
I recently mentioned this factor at a meeting of technology leaders
preparing technology grant applications for the schools in their district After
some startled looks and a short pause, a long discussion ensued. It turned
out that several of the schools were planning to install, for example, six
computers in rooms in which there were only one or two electrical outlets.
They quickly determined they would need to allocate substantial resources to
solving this and similar problems. Plan for adequate maintenance and upkeep
(Hadley & Sheingold, 1993).

Assessment
The most successful technology integration may look like a dismal failure if
assessed using traditional methods. Standardized test scores are not usually
the best method of assessing the benefits of technology. To assure continued
enthusiasm and support for technology integration, involve teachers, parents,
and administrators in developing better assessment and evaluation methods
that reflect new educational approaches (Brunner, 1992; Elmer-Dewitt, 1991;
Wiburg, 1991).

Broad Participation
I have mentioned the importance of strong administrative support and
leadership above. But it is just as important to involve site-based decision
making as well. Becker (1992) lists a group of key players, including
individual teachers, groups and committees of teachers, the school-site
computer coordinator, principal and other administrators, and district-level
co-ordinators or administrators, superintendents and school boards.
Becker (1992) has shown that in elementary schools, individual
teacher-level decision making results in greater use of computers for basic
math and language arts skills. Schools with strong internal decision-making
also provide more staff development activities, though this is less important
than district involvement.

52
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING
Finally, the number of computers per student and the amount of daily
computer use is greater in schools with strong internal collective
decision-making by groups which include teachers and administrators
(Becker, 1992).

Conclusions
These eight factors summarize what the North American literature has to tell
us about the conditions which drive success in school technology integration.
Together they promote the skills and knowledge, the environmental support,
the incentives and motivation required to help teachers successfully integrate
technology. (A British reviewer of this paper pointed out that the literature
from the UK also contains considerable emphasis on a factor not covered in
this paper: the management of technology in schools.)
Helping pre- and in-service teachers become aware of these success
factors may help them see their own situation in perspective and be prepared
to organize conditions in their school and district that will support their
technology initiatives.

Correspondence
Bob Hoffman, Department of Educational Technology, San Diego State
University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1182, USA
(bob.hoffman@sdsu.edu).

References
Becker, H. J. (1992) Top-down versus grass roots decision making about computer
acquisition and use in American schools. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 20-24, 1992,
San Francisco.
Bruder, I. (1989) Future teachers: are they prepared? Electronic Learning,
Jan/Feb, pp. 32-39.
Bruder, I. (1991) Schools of education: four exemplary programs, Electronic
Learning, March, pp. 21-24, 45.
Brunner, C. (1992) Integrating Technology into the Curriculum: teaching the
teachers. (No. CTE-TR-25) New York: Center for Technology in Education,
Bank Street College of Education.
Collins, A. (1991) The role of computer technology in restructuring schools,
Phi Delta Kappan, 73, pp. 28-36.
Davis, J. (1991) Restructuring and technology: partners in change, Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, pp. 3740 & 78-82.
Dockterman, D. A. (1991) Great Teaching in the One Computer Classroom.
Watertown: Tom Snyder Productions.

53
BOB HOFFMAN
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. (1991) Changes in teachers' beliefs and
practices in technology-rich classrooms, Educational Leadership, 48(8),
pp. 45-52.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. (1990a) Teacher Beliefs and Practices. Part
I: patterns of change. (ACOT Report #8). Cupertino: Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow, Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. (1990b) Teacher Beliefs and Practices. Part
II: support for change. (ACOT Report #9). Cupertino, CA: Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow, Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer.
Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1991) Education: the revolution that fizzled, Time, May 20,
pp. 48-49.
Fulton, K. (1988) Preservice and inservice: what must be done in both, Electronic
Learning, Oct, pp. 32-36.
Garbosky, J. (1994) Revisiting the experiences of educational technologists in public
education, Educational Technology, March, pp. 4349.
Glenn, A. D. (1993) Teacher education: one dean's perspective and forecast on the
state of technology and teacher prep, Electronic Learning, 12(5), pp. 18-19.
Hadley, M. & Sheingold, K. (1993) Commonalities and distinctive patterns in
teachers' integration of computers, American Journal of Education, 101,
pp. 261-315.
Hoffman, R. (1996) Levels of technology use and instructional innovation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University.
Hoffman, R. & Rossett, A. (in press) School Technology Planner [Computer
software]. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990) Teachers' Beliefs and Technology Integration:
different values, different understandings. New York: The Center for
Technology in Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED326203).
Mahmood, M. A. & Hirt, S. A. (1992) Evaluating a technology integration causal
model for the K-12 public school curriculum: a lisrel analysis (Research In
Education, May 21, 1992). Washington: US Department of Education.
Nelson, W. A., Andris, J. & Keefe, D. R. (1991) Technology where they least expect
it a computer-intensive teacher education curriculum, Computers in the
Schools, 8 (1/2/3), pp. 103-109.
Papert, S. (1990) Forward, in I. Harel (Ed.) Constructionist learning: a 5th
anniversary collection of papers. Cambridge: Epistemology and Learning
Group, MIT Media Laboratory.
Paul, D. (1994) An integration/inservice model that works, Technological Horizons
in Education, 21 (9), pp. 60-62.
Polin, L. (1992) [Making] changes in teachers' understanding and use of technology
for instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, April 20-24, 1992, San Francisco.

54
 SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY PLANNING
Russell, J. D., Sorge, D. & Brickner, D. (1994) Improving technology
implementation in grades 5-12 with the ASSURE model, Technological
Horizons in Education, 21(9), pp. 66-70.
Scrogan, L. (1989) The OTA report teachers, training, and technology. Classroom
Computer Learning, 1, pp. 80-84.
Sheingold, K. (1991) Restructuring for learning with technology: the potential for
synergy, Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), pp. 17-27.
Sudzina, M. R. (1993) Technology, teachers, educational reform: implications for
teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
of Teacher Educators, Feburary, 1993, Los Angeles.
Tetenbaum, T. J. & Mulkeen, T. A. (1986) Designing teacher education for the
twenty-first century, Journal of Higher Education, 57(6), pp. 621-636.
Vitchoff, L. (1989) Issues around integrating technology into the educational
environment (Research In Education, November, 1990). Washington:
US Department of Education.
Walters, J. (1992) Technology in the curriculum: the inclusion solution. Paper
presented at the National Forum of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts
Colleges for Teacher Education, June, 1992, Louisville.
Wiburg, K. M. (1991) Teaching teachers about technology, Computers in the
Schools, 8(1-3), pp. 115-129.

55