Implemenation+of+a+Ubiquitous+Computing+Environment

**Presentation:** **Implementation of a Ubiquitous Computing Environment**

There are a number of compelling reasons for schools to implement one-to-one learning environments; they are to increase student achievement, engagement, project-based learning, learning beyond the walls of the classroom, spontaneity in learning, and provide skills to integrate technology in their future careers (Jackson, 2004). Bielefeldt (2012) adds that when technology is appropriately utilized when it helps students put into practice acquired knowledge, encourages the learner to construct knowledge from previously and newly acquired knowledge, promotes higher order thinking, and leads to attaining 21st century skills. He observed that these skills are needed in “modern work environments for information acquisition, analysis, and sharing” (Bielefeldt, 2012, p. 207).

According to Burns and Polman (2006), one-to-one wireless computing environments help schools shift from the traditional, passive, teacher-led classes to ones that are more active and student-centered (as cited in Amankwatia, 2008). Educational models such as NET standards and 21st Century Skills are additional motivators for school districts to initiate ubiquitous learning environments. PDE (2012) website provided the following table to help explain some of the goals of the Classrooms for the Future (CFF) initiative. Since SLSD has been a recipient of CFF, their goal is to continue to move towards being a 2.0 school.


 * ** School 1.0 ** || **School 2.0** ||
 * Teacher centered || Learner centered ||
 * Content coverage || Learning and doing ||
 * Memorizing information || Using information ||
 * Lecturer || Facilitator and co-learner ||
 * Whole group configuration || Flexible group configuration ||
 * Single instructional and learning modality || Multiple instruction and learning modalities to include all students ||
 * Memorization and recall || Higher order thinking skills and creativity ||
 * Single discipline || Interdisciplinary ||
 * Isolated || Collaborative ||
 * Textbook dependent || Multiple sources of information ||
 * Teachers teaching to one learning style || Teacher addressing multiple learning styles ||
 * Learning content || Learning how to learn ||
 * Learning isolated skills and factoids || Completing authentic projects ||

Before effective implementation can occur, some preconditions need to be in place. Ely (1990) has identified eight specific conditions that should be in place in order to facilitate successful adoption and implementation of educational technology. First, there should be **//dissatisfaction with the status quo.//** In order for educator to adopt a change, they need to recognize a need for improvement. Second, to make implementation a success, educators need sufficient **//knowledge and skills.//** In order for educators to attain competency in the use of technology, they need training. With training, change can occur. Third, there must be an **//availability of resources//** to support and maintain the implementation in terms of finances and tools. Fourth, educators must have the **//availability of time.//** They need to set aside time for staff development, time to revise their existing lessons, time to practice with the technology, and time to evaluate. Fifth, like all people, educators need **//reward or incentives//**. The reward can be a job well done, personnel assistance, or even financial motivation. Rewards can add help promote implementation. Sixth, educators need to be active **//participants//** in decision-making, communication of ideas and opinions, and thus forms a sense of ownership in the implementation. Seventh, in order for implementation to work educators at all levels must make a **//commitment//**. Last of all, supportive **//leadership//** greatly affects the process of implementation. Educators rely upon the support of those in leadership. Leadership must be available to inspire, encourage, and ensure that the resources needed to do a good job will be available.

These eight conditions show what a district needs to be doing to ensure a successful implementation. Ely (1990) suggested that if anyone of these conditions is lacking, the effectiveness will be reduced. In a yearlong study, Amankwatia (2008) observed that when there was insufficient leadership commitment, motivators, resources, time, and staff training, then implementation of laptops was not as effective. In fact, Fullan (1992) described implementation as a dynamic, ongoing process; schools simply cannot anticipate everything needed in terms of training, resources, and strategies (as cited in Amankwatia, 2008).

In addition to these environmental factors, teachers’ beliefs might need to be changed (Amankwatia, 2008). McGrail (2005) pointed out that on occasion administrators and legislators view teachers as “objects of change rather than empowered agents of change and neglect to consider their perspectives about the value and need for new technology” (as cited in Amankwatia, 2008, p. 32). Fullan (2001) observed that when schools invite teacher participation in the decision-making process they will more likely adopt complex changes (as cited in Amankwatia, 2008).

Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a useful model for adopting change (Loucks-Horsley, 1996). This model maintains that it is essential to support individuals involved in change in order for change to be effective. Those who experience change at first focus on themselves by asking, how will it affect me? As issues resolve, the question now becomes, how can I do it? In the end, the educators focus shifts to the student and the question finally becomes, how will it affect my students? CBAM has conveniently identified seven Levels of Use that influence professional development:

Level 0, None-use: The educator has no knowledge or involvement with using a technology. Level 1, Orientation: The educator is exploring and acquiring information about a technology. Level 2, Preparation: The educator is getting ready to use a technology for the first time. Level 3, Mechanical Use: The technology is used superficially with little reflection. Level 4a, Routine: Technology use is mastered but little effort is used to improve its use. Level 4b, Refinement: The educator now varies technology use to increase the benefits. Level 5, Integration: The educator combines their efforts with their colleagues to improve benefits. Level 6, Renewal: The educator reevaluates quality of use to increase impact and explores new personal or community goals.

Once one-to-one computing is put into practice, implementation will need to be evaluated. This is where observation tools help both administrators and educators know if they are on track and are heading where they want to be. Bielefeldt states there must be “visible evidence that new practices are in effect” (Bielefeldt, 2012, p. 205). It is critical to evaluate what is being practiced within the classroom and that students are learning. He added that observation tools document the //extent// to which teachers and students implement new practices. It reveals how //effective// a technology program is when evaluated against the goals set by the school district. He also noted that although teacher preparation and technology support are an important aspect of implementation, they are difficult to observe directly.

This flow chart--adapted from Bielefeldt’s study--shows the steps needed to implement a new practice and points out when observation should occur (2012, p. 206).

Bielefeldt (2012, as cited in ISTE, 2000, 2002, 2007, & 2008) observed that true implementation includes “alignment with curriculum and instruction, active interaction with technology tools, and the use of technology to promote a range of important cognitive skills” (2012). These are criteria are found in National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). However, the standards themselves do not describe what educators need to accomplish to achieve these conditions.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) staff and consultants have developed a Classroom Observation Tool called ICOT (2011). This tool described seven learning attributes that can be observed when using ICOT (Bielefeldt, 2012).
 * 1) Student grouping (individual, groups of varying sizes, whole class)
 * 2) Teacher roles (lecturer, moderator, facilitator, role modeler)
 * 3) Learning activities
 * 4) Technology utilized by teachers and by students
 * 5) Amount of time technology is used
 * 6) Number of students engaged (Bielefeldt, 2012, pp. 206 & 207).

Observation needs to occur at regular intervals to document use and to see if implementation increases over time. Because ICOT has been used in various educational setting, it is a reliable and valid tool for classroom observation. Does research provide evidence of positive outcomes in one-to-one computing? In 2010 at the ISTE 2010 conference, Project RED (**R**evolutionizing **Ed**ucation) Team announced the results of their findings: educational institutions “with a 1:1 student-to-computer ratio outperform non-1:1 schools on both academic and financial measures” (Tech & Learning, 2012, para. 4). However, they added, success depends upon proper implementation such as collaborative learning communities for educators and weekly electronic formative assessments for students. Formative assessments as defined by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (n.d.) are “assessments, reviews, and observations in a classroom …. to improve instructional methods and student feedback. The results of formative assessments are used to modify and validate instruction” (para. 2).

The Project RED Team observed a number of successes in one-to-one environments: lower dropout rates that resulted in higher graduation rates, less disciplinary actions, improved high-stakes test scores (e.g. standardized tests), increased AP enrollments, and financial benefits. However, they noted, the most significant changes were for intervention programs like Special Education, Title I, and ESL programs. Research has shown that when students in these programs utilized technology on a daily basis to differentiate instruction they responded better, achieved more, and improved skills. In addition, daily and appropriate technology use in core subjects changed its use from being supplemental to an integral part of education. The Project RED Team added that ubiquitous technology engages students to use Web 2.0 tools, simulations, and collaborations. When technology is always available, ongoing assessments can lead to tailored lessons for differentiated instruction (Tech & Learning, 2010).

Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) observations support and complement those of Project RED. They observed that it was complicated to evaluate educational institutions in various studies because each had their own unique set of circumstances, such as support from administration, funding, teacher training, and implementation. As they analyzed various the studies about one-to-one schools, common themes began to emerge. The differences in outcomes were linked to the various ways in which technology //was used// to support and further educational activities. They emphasized that //effective use// is necessary for positive educational outcomes. The also noted that as resources increased in a 1:1 setting, the frequency and variety of technology use increased.

After evaluating a number of 1:1 programs where schools varied in technology use, Bebell and O’Dwyer determined that differences were also related to what roles the teachers and administrators take, staff development opportunities, and other supports (2010). Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) stated, “Teachers are on the implementation front lines of any 1:1 initiative. As such, special attention needs to be paid to essential supports for teachers” (p. 9). Bebell and Kay (2010) reported that the successes and failures of a 1:1 initiative fall upon teachers’ shoulders and how much they decide to use it during the school day (as cited in Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010). They noted that although teachers are on the frontlines, yet they required preparation, support, and clear leadership to run and oversee the implementation; without these “teacher and student technology use was regularly lowest in the student and teacher surveys” (cited in as Bebell & Kay, p. 50, 2010).

Effectively implemented technology is expected to improve students learning and engagement. Bebell and Kay (2010) determined that teaching and learning practices changed when students and teachers were provided with laptops, wireless learning environments, and additional technology resources. In the five 1:1 schools they examined, they found that while the implementation and outcomes of the program varied across schools and across the three implementation years, access to 1:1 computing led to measurable changes in teacher practices, student achievement, student engagement, and students’ research skills compared to the control condition (as cited in Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010, p. 11).

In addition, Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, and Caranikas-Walker (2010) reported that when computer use extended to the home, math and reading scores increased even more (as cited in Bebell & Kay, 2010). Weston & Bain (2010) recommended that schools should change how they view computers; they should not be viewed as technological tools but cognitive tools (as cited in Bebell and O’Dwyer, 2010). They concluded, “The point of any far-reaching educational technology … is not the mastery and success of the said technology, but the improvement of the process and environment in which teaching and learning occur” (Bebell and O’Dwyer, 2010, p. 12).

**Reflection** This activity fulfills the requirements for
 * I.C. Management and administration of technology programs at the building, district and regional levels including:**
 * **Preparing presentations for parents, administrators, school boards, and the public**
 * **Monitoring and evaluating technology plans**

This activity was to make a presentation for Southern Lehigh district administrators regarding the implementation of a ubiquitous computing environment at the high school. In order to prepare for my presentation, I examined relevant research on implementing 1:1 computing.

The District’s technology Educational Plan states that all teachers have a computer and the students have a 2:1 student to computer ratio (SLSD, 2011, p. 5), and they continue to move towards a 1:1 computing environment for all students (SLSD, 2011, p. 10). The Pennsylvania Classroom for the Future (CFF) initiative helped bring the district closer to that goal by establishing 31 classrooms in high school core subjects. These classes were called “smart’ classrooms because of the many resources they had in addition to the computers. On April 30, 2012 with the school board’s approval, an additional 500 laptops will move the high school to a ubiquitous computing environment.

Now that a 1:1 environment is now being implemented for their high school students, what else needs to be in place to make it a successful implementation? I researched the reasons for implementing technology, what conditions had to be in place to ensure success, what to look for in staff development, tools to observe ongoing implementation, and successes in other districts.

I prepared a narrated PowerPoint presentation to publish these findings. Mr. Jordan indicated the presentation will be used for Administrative staff within the District. YouTube link: []

**Resources** Amankwatia, T. B. (2008). //Teaching with technology for 21st-century learning: A multiple-case study of a school district's high school laptop initiative// (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L.M. (2010). Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings. //Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9//(1). Retrieved from []

Bielefeldt, T. (2012). Guidance for technology decisions from classroom observation. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education//, //44//(3), 205-223.

Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions That Facilitate the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations. //Journal Of Research On Computing In Education//, //23//(2), 298-305.

Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). //Classroom assessments//. Retrieved from []

International Society of Technology for Education (ISTE). (2011). //ICOT.// Retrieved from []

Jackson, Lorrie. (2004). //One-to-one computing: Lessons learned, pitfalls to avoid.// Retrieved from []

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education//, //38//(3), 329-348.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1997). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. Bybee (Ed.) //National standards & the science// //curriculum.// Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Retrieved from []

PDE. (2012). //Classroom for the future//. Retrieved from [|http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/classrooms_for_the_future_(ed_hub)/8911]

Southern Lehigh School District. (2011). Educational technology report. Retrieved from slsd.org

Tech & Learning. (2010). //Study shows the benefits of 1:1 and the factors that enhance success.// Retrieved from []